Subsequent Overruling Of A Decision On Which A Judgment Is Based Is Not A Ground For Review Or Recall It: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court has held that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based.
In that context, the Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipaankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan further observed: "We, thus, hold that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based..."notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC."
ASG Bhati appeared for the review petitioners and Senior Counsel Kailash Vasdev appeared for the Delhi Development Authority.
The case originated from a series of review petitions (RPs) filed by the Delhi Development Authority, the Government of NCT of Delhi, and the Land and Building Department. These petitions sought the Supreme Court's review of prior judgments/orders dismissing their Civil Appeals or Special Leave Petitions. The High Court of Delhi had previously ruled that land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had lapsed in accordance with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
A Division Bench of the Supreme Court, while hearing the RPs, delivered a split verdict in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited. The presiding judge ruled in favor of the RPs' maintainability, whereas the companion judge disagreed, declaring the RPs not maintainable. This split decision necessitated the matter's referral to a larger bench for resolution.
The controversy centered around the interpretation of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, which had been the subject of several Supreme Court decisions. Initially, in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014), the Court ruled on the meaning of "compensation has not been paid" but did not address whether "or" should be interpreted as "and." This interpretation was later questioned in Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) by a two-judge bench. Subsequently, a three-judge bench in the same case declared Pune Municipal Corporation per incuriam. Further complicating the matter, the State of Haryana v. G.D. Goenka Tourism Corporation Limited (2018) deferred hearings and directed lower Courts to refrain from dealing with Section 24 cases until clarity was achieved. The critical turning point came with Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020), where a five-judge bench overruled Pune Municipal Corporation. Following this, the 2014 decision in Pune Municipal Corporation was formally recalled, effectively erasing its legal standing.
In arguing for the RPs' maintainability, the review petitioners, represented by the Government of NCT of Delhi, contended that the specific overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation necessitated a reconsideration of prior judgments based on it. They argued that public interest, particularly regarding land acquired for low-income housing projects, justified the review. They also requested case-by-case consideration based on various factors, such as the acquisition stage and compensation status.
The Delhi Development Authority echoed these arguments, emphasizing public interest over private interest and calling for the invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure substantial justice. In contrast, the landowner respondents argued that the overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation did not affect judgments that had attained finality between the parties. They cited legal precedents indicating that such overruling does not constitute grounds for review under Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code and highlighted the inordinate delays in filing the RPs without adequate explanation.
Given these conflicting positions, a three-judge bench was convened to determine the RPs' maintainability and address ancillary issues, following the split verdict in K.L. Rathi Steels Limited. The Bench was tasked with deciding whether the RPs should be heard on their merits or dismissed at the threshold.
The Apex Court said that, "We respectfully concur with the opinion expressed by the Hon’ble companion Judge on the said Division Bench and record our inability to be ad idem with the Hon’ble presiding Judge." It was held that:
- the last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra does not grant ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation.
- the RPs cannot be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal.
- the RPs do not deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged.
- the miscellaneous applications are not maintainable.
In light of the larger public interest, the Court also issued 11 directions, while holding that, "The time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year starting from 01st August, 2024 whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law, failing which consequences, also as per law, shall follow".
Cause Title: Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs M/s KL Rathi Steels Limited & Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment