Holding

The review petitions are not maintainable because the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC precludes review on the ground of a subsequent overruling of a precedent.

Summary

The Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi Development Authority sought review of several civil appeals that had been dismissed on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, which interpreted Section 24(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. After the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal overruled the Pune Municipal Corporation judgment and all decisions following it, the applicants argued that the earlier dismissals should be recalled. The Court examined whether a review petition under Article 137 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is maintainable when the sole ground is a subsequent overruling of a precedent, and considered the effect of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which bars review on that basis. It held that the Explanation precludes such review, that the delay in filing could be condoned but does not affect maintainability, and therefore the review petitions were dismissed, with only a limited extension of time for fresh acquisition proceedings granted.

Issues considered

The maintainability of review petitions under Article 137 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC when the ground is that a prior judgment has been overruled by a later Constitution Bench.
Whether the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars review on the basis of a subsequent overruling of a precedent.
Whether the delay in filing the review petitions can be condoned.
Whether the earlier civil appeals should be recalled and restored for rehearing on merits.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 47 Rule 1
Constitution of Indias. Article 137
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013s. 24(2)
Supreme Court Rules, 2013s. Order 47 Rule 1

Subjects

review jurisdictionArticle 137Order XLVII Rule 1 CPCoverruling precedentper incuriamland acquisitionSection 24(2)res judicataSupreme CourtConstitution Benchsufficient reason

Judgment

[2023] 6 S.C.R. 209 209

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THROUGH THE SECRETARY, A
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER
v.
M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED AND OTHERS
Miscellaneous Application No. 414 of 2023
B
In
(Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016)
MARCH 17, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
C
Constitution of India : Art. 137 – Review of judgment or orders
by the Supreme Court – Review of the judgments/orders passed by
this Court, on basis of the judgment overruled by a subsequent
judgment – Maintainability of – On facts, land acquisition matters
– Based on *Pune Municipal Corporation’s case on the interpretation
of s. 24(2) of 2013 Act, several decision passed by this Court – D
However, the Pune Municipal Corporation’s case subsequently
overruled by the Constitution Bench in **Indore Development
Authority’s case – Constitution Bench specifically observed and held
that not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation’s
case is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal E
Corporation’s case has been followed are also overruled – Filing of
review petitions, to review and recall the judgments/orders impugned
in the review petitions and to restore the Civil Appeals or Special
Leave Petitions, for consideration on merits – Held: In view of
difference of opinion, matter be placed before Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 47 r. 1 – Right F
to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s. 24(2) – Supreme Court
Rules, 2013 – Or. 47 r. 1.
In the Order of M. R. SHAH, J.
**Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & G
Others (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
*Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through
Lrs. & Others (2018) 3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1; H
209
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai
N.B. Jeejeebhoy (1970) 1 SCC 613 : [1970] 3 SCR
830; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14
SCC 171 : [2008] 13 SCR 421; Board of Control for
Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC
B
741 : [2005] 1 SCR 173; Sree Balaji Nagar Residential
Assn. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353 : [2014]
7 SCR 799; BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1 :
[2006] 2 SCR 823; Neelima Srivastava v. State of U.P.
2021 SCC OnLine SC 610; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
C (2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25; Beghar
Foundation v. K. S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1; Indore
Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC 733
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
D [2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 4
[2018] 2 SCR 1 referred to Para 4.1
[1970] 3 SCR 830 referred to Para 4.5
[2008] 13 SCR 421 referred to Para 4.6
E
[2005] 1 SCR 173 referred to Para 4.7
[2014] 7 SCR 799 referred to Para 5.5
[2006] 2 SCR 823 referred to Para 5.5
[2013] 11 SCR 25 referred to Para 5.6
F
(2021) 3 SCC 1 referred to Para 5.7
(2018) 1 SCC 733 referred to Para 6
[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 9
In the Judgment of B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.
G
Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) 8
SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal
Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1 SCR 783; Indore
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 211
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD.

Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018) 1 SCC A
733; Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (2018)
3 SCC 412 : [2018] 2 SCR 1; Indore Development
Authority v. Shyam Verma (2018) SCC Online SC 3324;
Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and Others v. Dossibai
N. B. Jeejeebhoy AIR 1971 SC 2355 : [1970] 3 SCR
B
830; Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 14
SCC 171 : [2008] 13 SCR 421; Dr. Subramaniam Swamy
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 75 :
[2014] 1 SCR 308; Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai (2007)
15 SCC 513; Beghar Foundation through its Secretary C
v. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors. (2021) 3
SCC 1; K. S. Puttuswamy v. Union of India (2019) 1
SCC 1 : [2018] 8 SCR 1; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
and Another v. Union of India and Others (2006) 3
SCC 1 : [2006] 2 SCR 823; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
D
and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25;
The Bengal Immunity Company Ltd. v. The State of Bihar
AIR 1955 SC 661 : [1955] SCR 603; Bisheshwar
Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath AIR 1934 P.C. 213; Hari
Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter AIR 1949 FC 106;
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar E
Paulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 : [1955] SCR
520; Y. P. Chawla and Others v. M. P. Tiwari and
Another AIR 1992 SC 1360 : [1992] 2 SCR 440;
Shakuntla Devi v. Kamla (2005) 5 SCC 390; Lily Thomas
v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224 : [2000] 3 SCR
F
1081; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC
78 : [2006] 3 SCR 87; Thungabhadra Industries Ltd.
v. Government of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372 : [1964] 5
SCR 174; Union of India v. Mohd. Nayyar Khalil (2000)
9 SCC 252; Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (RP Dy.
No. 1249 of 1999) (1999) 5 SCC 703; Usha Bharti v. G
State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 7 SCC 663 : [2014] 4
SCR 1076; State of Gujarat & Anr. v. Justice R. A. Mehta
(Retd.) (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1; Madan
Mohan Pathak & Anr. v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC
803 : (1978) 2 SCC 50 : [1978] 3 SCR 334; Neelima
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) SCC online
610; Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3)
(2006) 4 SCC 1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953; Union of India v.
Major S. P. Sharma (2014) 6 SCC 351 : [2014] 4 SCR
327; Special Courts Bill, 1978, In RE (1979) 1 SCC
380 : [1979] 2 SCR 476; State of West Bengal v. Kamal
B
Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 : [2008] 10 SCR 4; Hari
Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter 1949 FCR 36; Parison
Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 : [1997] 4 Suppl.
SCR 470; Nalagarh Dehati Coop. Transport Society
Ltd. v. Beli Ram AIR 1981 HP 1; Gyan Chandra
C Dwivedi v. 2nd ADJ, Kanpur AIR 1987 All 40;
S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy (2022)
SCC OnLine SC 1034; Chajju Ram v. Neki AIR 1922
P.C 112; Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 : [2013] 2 SCR
1045; State of Haryana v. G. D. Goenka Tourism
D
Corporation Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585 –
referred to.
G. P. Singh’s “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” –
15th Edition.
E Case Law Reference
[2014] 1 SCR 783 referred to Para 5
(2018) 1 SCC 733 referred to Para 6
[2018] 2 SCR 1 referred to Para 6
F [1970] 3 SCR 830 referred to Para 14
[2008] 13 SCR 421 referred to Para 14
[2014] 1 SCR 308 referred to Para 17 (i)
(2007) 15 SCC 513 referred to Para 17 (i)
G (2021) 3 SCC 1 referred to Para 17 (ii)
[2018] 8 SCR 1 referred to Para 17 (ii)
[2006] 2 SCR 823 referred to Para 17 (iii)
[2013] 11 SCR 25 referred to Para 17 (iv)
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 213
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD.

[1955] SCR 603 referred to Para 18 A
AIR 1922 P.C. 112 referred to Para 34 (i)
AIR 1934 P.C. 213 referred to Para 34 (i)
AIR 1949 FC 106 referred to Para 34 (ii)
[1955] SCR 520 referred to Para 34 (iii) B
[1992] 2 SCR 440 referred to Para 38
[2006] 2 SCR 823 referred to Para 42
(2005) 5 SCC 390 referred to Para 43 (c)
C
[2000] 3 SCR 1081 referred to Para 43 (e)
[2006] 3 SCR 87 referred to Para 45 (a)
[1964] 5 SCR 174 referred to Para 45 (b)
(2000) 9 SCC 252 referred to Para 45 (c)
D
(1999) 5 SCC 703 referred to Para 45 (d)
[2014] 4 SCR 1076 referred to Para 45 (e)
[2013] 1 SCR 1 referred to Para 46 (a)
[1978] 3 SCR 334 referred to Para 46 (b)
E
[2006] 3 SCR 953 referred to Para 46 (c)
[2014] 4 SCR 327 referred to Para 46 (d)
[1979] 2 SCR 476 referred to Para 46 (f)
[2008] 10 SCR 4 referred to Para 46 (g) F
[1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470 referred to Para 46 (g) (ii)
AIR 1981 HP 1 referred to Para 46 (g) (iii)
AIR 1987 All 40 referred to Para 46 (g) (iv)
AIR 1922 PC 112 referred to Para 46 (h) G
[2013] 2 SCR 1045 referred to Para 46 (h) (i)
(2018) 3 SCC 585 referred to Para 47
[2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 51
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 414 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2016 in C.A. No.11857
of 2016 of the Supreme Court of India.
With
B
Review Petition No. 396 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of
2016, Review Petition No. 397 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8909 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 398 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8529 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 399 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 400 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8899 of 2016,
C Review Petition No. 401 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8527 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 402 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8547 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 403 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8952 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 404 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 12111 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 405 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8935 of 2016,
D Review Petition No. 406 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8954 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 407 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9049 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 408 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8559 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 409 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8511 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 410 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8925 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 411 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9214 of 2016,
E Review Petition No. 412 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 12114 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 413 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9595 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 414 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8898 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 415 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11853 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 416 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 4599 of 2016,
F Review Petition No. 417 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8921 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 418 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8505 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 419 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 10206 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 420 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8904 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 421 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9719 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 422 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 12046 of 2016,
G Review Petition No. 423 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8957 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 424 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8922 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 425 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 8929 of 2016,
Review Petition No. 426 of 2023 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
17316 of 2016, Review Petition No. 427 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.
H 8545 of 2016, Review Petition No. 428 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9598
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 215
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD.

of 2016, Review Petition No. 429 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11256 of A
2016, Review Petition No. 430 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11854 of
2016, Review Petition No. 431 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9597 of 2016,
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 735 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11857 of
2016, Miscellaneous Application No. 159 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No.
11857 of 2016, Review Petition No. 432 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.
B
11841 of 2016 and Review Petition (Civil) No. 882 of 2017 in Civil Appeal
No. 11846 of 2016.
Tushar Mehta, SG, K.M. Nataraj, ASG, B.K. Satija, Dinesh
Chander Yadav, AAGs, Sanjay Poddar, V. Giri, Shyam Divan, Neeraj
Kr. Jain, Vivek Chib, Sr. Advs., Praveen Swarup, Shivam Goel, Anil
Kumar Goyal, Govind Kumar, Pratesh Goel, Ramaya S. Goel, Ajay C
Vikram Singh, Ms. Priyanka Singh, Shekhar Shrotiya, Ms. Qurratulain,
Anil Kr. Goyal, Govind Kumar, Pratish Goel, Vishnu B. Saharya, Viresh
B. Saharya, Akshat Agarwala, M/s. Saharya & Co., Nitin Mishra, A.S.
Rishi, Ishwar Chand, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Suresh Kumar Bhan, Ms.
Asmita Dwivedi, Ms. Swati Yadav, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Ms. Binu Tamta, D
Ravi Bharuka, Ankit Agarwal, Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Ms. Arti Singh,
Aakashdeep Singh Roda, Ms. Pooja Singh, Basant Pal Singh,
Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, Ms. Sneha Botwe, Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey,
Manish Vashist, Ashutosh Kaushik, Ms. Jasmine Damkewala, T. V. S.
Raghavendra Sreyas, Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Neelaksh Sharma,
Ms. Akshita, Siddharth Vasudev, Dinesh K. Garg, Dhananjay Garg, E
Abhishek Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Ajit Gaikwar, Amit Malik, Sudeep Singh,
Ms. Neelam Singh, Davesh Bhatia, Dr. M. K. Ravi, Ankur Bansal, Rajiv
Raheja, Deepak Vuttsya, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Anirudh Bakru, Ayush
Puri, Ms. Anshula Laroiya, Anubhav Ray, T. N. Singh, Vikas K. Singh,
Sham Chand, Vikram Singh, Rajshree Singh, Umang Tripathi, Ms. Smita F
Maan, Ms. Nina R Nariman, Ms. Diksha Rai, Ankit Agarwal, Vivek
Sharma, Ms. Coral Shah, Ms. Unnati Jhunjhunwala, Ms. Kristideepa
Choudhury, Ms. Ragini Pandey, R. Jawahar Lal, Siddharth Bawa,
Mayank Kshirsagar, N.S. Vasisht, Ms. Jyoti Kataria, Ajay Marwah,
Divyanshu Goyal, Ms. Srishti Bhalla, Mayank Kapoor, Alok Gupta, Atul
Kumar, Amitabh Ranjan, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rajiv Ranjan, Rahul G
Pandey, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Anu Sula, Himesh Thakur, Ms. Tanya
Mittal, Abhinav Shrivastava, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Kanu Agrawal,
Sharath Nambiar, B.K. Satija, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Nakul Chengappa,
Ms. Astha Tyagi, Dinesh Chander Trehan, Ms. Neha Tripathi, Ashwani
Kumar, Ms. Kumud Nijhawan, Anshay Dhatwalia, Ravinder Nain, Puneet H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A Sharma, Nishit Agarwal, Ms. Kaniska Mittal, Rajiv K. Garg, Ashish
Garg, T.L. Garg, Ms. Bhavana Moolchandni, Hitesh Kr. Sharma, S.K.
Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, Mrs. Vipin Gupta, Rakesh Kumar, Akhil Sachar,
Ms. Sunanda Tulsyan, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following decisions of the Court were passed:
B ORDER
M. R. SHAH, J.
1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
applications/petitions, all these applications/petitions are decided and
disposed of together by this common order.
C
2. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and in
the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay caused in filing the
respective review/recall applications is hereby condoned.
3. All these applications under Article 137 of the Constitution of
India r/w Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) have been
D preferred by the Government of NCT of Delhi and Delhi Development
Authority to review and recall the orders passed in the respective Civil
Appeals in dismissing/disposing off the same and to restore the same to
their original files to consider the same on merits.
4. Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
E of the Government of NCT of Delhi and other learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority have vehemently submitted
that while dismissing/disposing off all the respective Civil Appeals and
holding and/or confirming the judgments of the respective High Courts
declaring that the acquisition of the lands in question have lapsed in view
of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
F
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘2013 Act’), reliance was placed on the decision of
this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183. It is the case on behalf of the
applicants that the decision of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal
G Corporation (supra), which was relied upon while dismissing/disposing
off all the respective appeals has been specifically overruled by a
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manohar Lal & others, (2020) 8 SCC 129. It is submitted
on behalf of the respective applicants that by specifically overruling the
decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), the
H
Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 217
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) A
is overruled, but all other decisions in which Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) has been followed are also overruled. Heavy
reliance is placed upon para 365 of the Constitution Bench of this Court
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra).
4.1 It is further submitted on behalf of the applicants that this B
Court in the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development Authority
v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. & Others, (2018) 3 SCC 412,
while holding that the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and other decisions following the view taken in
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are per incuriam, it was observed
that the decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation C
(supra) are open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of the
said decision. It is submitted that pursuant to the liberty reserved in the
said decision, the present applications/petitions have been preferred.
4.2 It is further submitted that power to review flows from Article
137 of the Constitution of India. It is contended that once the law has D
been laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal & Others (supra)
and specifically overruling the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) which was the basis to dispose of/dismiss the
respective appeals, the principle of res judicata shall not be applicable E
on the question of law.
4.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
applicants have also submitted that as such the judgment and order passed
by this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been subsequently recalled by a three Judge Bench of this Court vide F
order dated 16.07.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 877/2014. It is
submitted that in that view of the matter also, the orders passed in the
respective civil appeals dismissing/disposing off the same relying upon
the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are
also required to be reviewed/recalled.
G
4.4 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
applicants have also relied upon some of the subsequent orders passed
by this Court recalling similar orders dismissing/disposing off the civil
appeals in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was relied upon and the respective proceedings
are ordered to be restored to their original file in which the effect of the H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A subsequent judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of
Indore Development Authority (supra) Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) is under consideration. Reliance is placed on the order passed
by this Court dated 15.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application Diary No.
21678/2020.
B 4.5 Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the applicants has relied upon the decision of this Court in the
case of Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Others v. Dossibai N.B.
Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613 in support of his submissions that as
held by this Court that the decision on question of law where the law is
altered since the earlier decision, the earlier decision will not operate as
C res judicata.
4.6 Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Limited, (2008) 14 SCC 171, it is submitted that as observed
and held by this Court a judicial decision acts retrospectively. It is
D submitted that it is further observed that if a subsequent decision alters
the earlier one, the later decision does not make new law. It only discovers
the correct principle of law which has to be applied retrospectively. It is
submitted that it is further observed that to put it differently, even where
an earlier decision of the court operated for quite some time, the decision
E rendered later on would have retrospective effect clarifying the legal
position which was earlier not correctly understood.
4.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the respective applicants that in the present case, in many cases, the
possession of the lands in question has been handed over to the DDA/
F applicants which are to be used for the public purpose. It is contended
that because of the wrong interpretation of law in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra), the acquisitions have been held to be
lapsed. It is submitted that therefore in view of the subsequent decision
of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority
(supra) clarifying the law and specifically overruling the decision of this
G Court rendered in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra),
there shall not be any lapse of acquisition under the provisions of the
2013 Act. It is submitted that if the impugned orders passed in the
respective Civil Appeals are not reviewed/recalled, in that case, the
applicants/public authorities have to suffer and they will have to handover
H the possession of the lands in question back to the original landowners
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 219
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

and thereby the lands in question shall not be used for the public purpose A
for which they are acquired. It is contended that as observed and held
by this Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India v.
Netaji Cricket Club (2005) 4 SCC 741, a mistake on the part of the
Court may also call for a review of the order. It is submitted that in the
aforesaid decision it is further observed and held by this Court that the
B
words “sufficient reason” in order 47 Rule 1 CPC are wide enough to
include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
It is further observed that an application for review may be necessitated
by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.
4.8 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present applications and review/recall C
the earlier orders passed in the respective Civil Appeals dismissing/
disposing off the same, relying upon the decision in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation (supra), which has been subsequently overruled
by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and thereafter to decide and dispose D
of the same in light of the subsequent decision rendered by the Constitution
Bench in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is
submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to the respective respondents
if the matters are heard afresh on merits and the respective respondents/
landowners will be heard on merits on all points.
E
5. All these review applications are opposed by Shri Shyam Divan,
Sri V. Giri, Shri Neeraj Kumar Jain, Shri Vivek Chib, learned Senior
Advocates and other counsel appearing for the respective respondents.
5.1 It is vehemently submitted on behalf of the respective
respondents that the applicants have admittedly filed the instant review F
applications seeking review of the orders passed by this Court based on
a subsequent decision. It is submitted that change in law in view of the
subsequent decision of the Court cannot be a ground for review. It is
submitted that even if the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case
of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) has
overruled the decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation G
(supra), the settled position inter parties may not be affected.
5.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise the judgment in
Indore Development Authority (supra) may be construed to be
prospective in its operation and cannot reopen claims/cases which have
already attained finality. H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 5.3 It is submitted that the law operational at the time when the
Delhi High Court delivered the judgment in the present matter (Civil
Appeal No. 8529/2016) was that laid down in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra).
5.4 It is contended that even before the date on which the judgment
B of the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal (supra) was delivered, the matter had attained finality and rights of
the respective respondents over the subject lands were crystallised.
5.5 It is urged that so far as the reliance placed upon para 365 of
the decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
C Lal (supra) is concerned, the Constitution Bench was only concerned
with the correctness of the law laid down in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) and Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. v. State
of Tamil Nadu (2015) 3 SCC 353. That the Constitution Bench was
not considering the appeals in relation to Pune Municipal Corporation
(supra) or Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra), or for that
D matter a review of the decision in the aforesaid cases or any other case
for that matter. Therefore, the Constitution Bench could not have and
did not intend to reverse or review the judgments, as an expression of
adjudication by this Court either in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra)
or Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra) or any other judgment
E of the competent Court that has followed the aforesaid judgments. That
the effect of overruling of the judgment could only be to address the
precedential value of the judgments so overruled but cannot set at naught
the decree that has been passed in that regard. It is submitted that by
overruling a decision, the overruled judgment will lose its precedential
value and nothing more than that. Reliance is placed on the decision of
F this Court in the case of BSNL v. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1.
That in the said decision, it is observed that the overruling would not
affect the binding nature of a decision between the parties to the lis.
5.5.1 Shri Divan, learned Senior Advocate has also relied upon
the recent decision of this Court in the case of Neelima Srivastava v.
G State of U.P. (2021 SCC OnLine SC 610) in support of his submission
that as held by this Court that mere overruling of the principles by a
subsequent judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision
inter-parties. It is urged that therefore para 365 of the Constitution Bench
judgment in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra)
H does not aid the review petitioners.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 221
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

5.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for A
the respective respondents that even otherwise none of the conditions
enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Order 47 of the Supreme
Court Rules are satisfied. That the review petitions are filed under Article
137 of the Constitution r/w Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules. That
Article 137 states that “subject to the provisions of any law made by
B
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145”, this Court shall have
power to review its decision. It is submitted that Order 47 of the Supreme
Court Rules states that “no application for review will be entertained in
a civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. That Order 47 Rule 1 CPC states that a review petition may be
preferred on the following grounds, C
(a) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him, OR
(b) order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record, OR D

(c) for any other sufficient reason.
It is submitted that in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati
(2013) 8 SCC 320, this Court has reiterated the law on review jurisdiction
and it is observed and held that unless the aforesaid grounds are made E
out, the review petition shall not be maintainable.
5.7 It is further submitted that even otherwise overruling of an
earlier decision cannot be a ground for review. It is contended that the
sole ground raised in the present cases is that the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been held to be per incuriam F
in the earlier decision of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra
(dead) through Lrs. (supra) and it is contended by the review petitioners
that as per the judgment in Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra), the decisions rendered on
the basis of the Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) were open to
review in appropriate cases based on the said decision. It is submitted G
that the explanation to Order 47 of the Code states that the fact that the
decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is
based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior court in any other case, shall not be aground for the review of
such judgment. It is submitted that a Constitution Bench of this Court in
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A the case of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy (2021) 3 SCC 1
has observed that change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a
coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review.
5.8 Learned counsel for the respective respondents have submitted
B that in some of the cases, similar review petitions post Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar
Lal (supra) have been dismissed. It is submitted that merely because
the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been recalled subsequently may not be a ground to review and/or recall
the orders passed in the present cases and that too after such a long
C delay. It is submitted that the order of recall does not in any manner
afford any additional impetus to the applicants to seek a review of the
judgment in the present cases.
5.9 Making the above submissions and relying upon the aforesaid
decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the review applications.
D
6. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.
At the outset, it is required to be noted that in all these cases, the
respective Civil Appeals have been dismissed/disposed of, confirming
the orders passed by the respective High Courts, relying upon the decision
E of this Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra).
However, it is required to be noted that in Indore Development Authority
v. Shailendra, (2018) 1 SCC 733, correctness of the decision in the
case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was doubted. The matter
was placed before the three Judge Bench. By a majority decision, the
decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) was held
F to be per incuriam. While holding so and overruling the decision in
Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. (supra) and other decisions
following the said decision to the extent they were in conflict with the
three Judge Bench decision, this Court also observed that the decisions
rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) are
G open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of the said decision.
That is how, the applicants have preferred the present review applications
in view of the observations and liberty reserved in para 217 in the case
of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs.
(supra). The matter does not rest there. Thereafter, a reference was
made to the five Judge Bench of this Court. A Constitution Bench of this
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 223
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal A
(supra) thereafter has specifically overruled the decision in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). In para 365, it is observed and
held as under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal B
Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183 is hereby overruled and all other
decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal
Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183
has been followed, are also overruled. The decision in Sree Balaji
Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn.
v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353 cannot be said to be laying C
down good law, is overruled and other decisions following the
same are also overruled. In Indore Development Authority v.
Shailendra [Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra,
(2018) 3 SCC 412, the aspect with respect to the proviso to Section
24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was D
not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot
prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present judgment.”
Thus, the Constitution Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision
has not only observed that the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) is overruled but has also specifically observed that E
all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has
been followed, are also overruled. I have to give some meaning to the
said observations. Thus, in view of the above specific observations made
by the Constitution Bench of this Court, the objections, as above, raised
on behalf of the respective respondents are to be overruled. None of the
submissions/decisions relied upon on behalf of the respective respondents F
shall be of any assistance to the respondents, though there cannot be
any dispute with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the relied
upon judgments/decisions on the review jurisdiction, more particularly,
in view of the observations made in para 217 in the earlier decision of
this Court in the case of Indore Development Authority v. Shailendra G
(dead) through Lrs. (supra) and the observations made in para 365 in
the subsequent decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Indore
Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra), reproduced
hereinabove.

H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 7. It is also required to be noted that in similar set of facts and
circumstances, this Court had condoned the delay and reviewed/recalled
the similar order in which the decision in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation (supra) was relied upon. It may be true that in some cases,
the review applications have been dismissed. However, considering the
orders passed in rejecting review applications, it appears that attention
B
of the Court to paras 365 and 366 of the decision of the Constitution
Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra) and
para 217 of the earlier decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Shailendra (dead) through Lrs. (supra) were not brought
to the notice of the Court.
C 8. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the respective
respondents that the case does not fall under Order 47 CPC and that the
subsequent overruling cannot be a ground to review the earlier order(s)
is concerned, at the outset, it is required to be noted that here is a peculiar
case where the earlier decision in the case of Pune Municipal
D Corporation (supra), upon which reliance has been placed earlier, was
itself doubted in the subsequent decision in the case of Indore
Development Authority (supra) and that the matter was referred to
the Constitution Bench and thereafter the Constitution Bench has declared
the law as above, more particularly paras 365 and 366 of the judgment
in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra). It is also required
E to be noted that in most of the cases solely relying upon the earlier
decision in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) and though
the possession of the lands in question have been taken over and in
many cases it might have been utilised/used by the beneficiary authorities,
orders are passed declaring the deemed lapse of acquisition. The resultant
F effect would be to return the possession of the land/s which might have
been used by the beneficiary authorities. Therefore also in the larger
public interest, the review applications are required to be allowed and
the respective appeals are required to be considered and decided afresh.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, these are the
cases where the review applications are to be allowed and the appropriate
G public authorities are to be given an opportunity to put forward their
case afresh, which shall be in the larger public interest.
9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these
review/recall applications are allowed. The orders passed in the
respective Civil Appeals are hereby recalled and the respective Civil
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 225
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Appeals are hereby ordered to be restored to their original file. Let the A
said Civil Appeals be considered in accordance with law and on their
own merits and in light of the decision in the case of Indore Development
Authority v. Manohar Lal (supra). All the defences and/or contentions
which may be available to the respective parties are kept open including
the possession and neither I have entered into the questions on merits
B
nor expressed anything on merits in favour of either of the parties.
10. In view of the order passed in the review applications, no
further order is required to be passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No.
735/2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11857/2016, which stands disposed of.
JUDGMENT C
NAGARATHNA, J.
I have had the advantage of reading the judgment proposed by
His Lordship M.R. Shah, J. in these review petitions. However, I am
unable to agree with the reasoning as well as the conclusions arrived at
by him. D
2. In these batch of cases, the issue revolves around in my view
the very maintainability of these review petitions both on the ground of
delay and on a consideration of Article 137 of the Constitution of India
as well as Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (for
short, “S.C. Rules - 2013”) and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil E
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short). The aforesaid provisions are
respectively extracted as under for immediate reference:
“Article 137 of the Constitution of India:
‘137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme
F
Court. -Subject to the provisions of any law made by
Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme
Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or
order made by it.’
******
G
Order XLVII Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013:
‘Order XLVII Rule 1- The Court may review its judgment
or order, but no application for review will be entertained in a
civil proceeding except on the ground mentioned in Order
H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, and in a criminal proceeding except
on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The application for review shall be accompanied by a
certificate of the Advocate on Record certifying that it is the
first application for review and is based on the grounds
B admissible under the Rules.’
******
‘Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC-
1. Application for review of judgment. —
C (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved —
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but
from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
D (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when
the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some
E mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any
other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of
judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply
F for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal
by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on
which he applies for the review.

G Explanation – The fact that the decision on a question of
law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been
reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for
the review of such judgment.”
(Emphasis by me)
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 227
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

3. Before applying the said provisions to these review petitions, it A
is necessary to give a brief factual background to these cases.
4. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “L.A. Act, 1894”) was a
pre-Independence legislation applicable to acquisition of land on the
principle of eminent domain. The same was repealed and substituted
by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, B
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (‘L.A. Act, 2013’ for the
sake of convenience). L.A. Act, 2013 came into effect from 01.01.2014.
Section 24 with particular reference to Section 24 (2) of L.A. Act,
2013, is relevant for the purpose of these review petitions. The said
provision reads as under:
C
“24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall
be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases.–(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of
land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894,—
D
(a) where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition
Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to
the determination of compensation shall apply; or
(b) where an award under said section 11 has been made, then
such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the E
said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been
repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), in case
of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 F
has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of
this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken
or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall
be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so
chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh
in accordance with the provisions of this Act: G
Provided that where an award has been made and compensation
in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in
the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified
in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land
Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A with the provisions of this Act.”
5. Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of L.A. Act, 2013 was a subject
matter of consideration and interpretation in the case of Pune Municipal
Corporation vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 183
(Pune Municipal Corporation) and Indore Development Authority
B vs. Manoharlal (2020) 8 SCC 129 (Indore Development Authority).
6. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pune Municipal
Corporation interpreted Section 24 of L.A. Act, 2013. In one of the
cases, namely, Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (2018)
1 SCC 733, the matter was referred to a Three-Judge Bench vide
C order dated 07.12.2017. In Indore Development Authority vs.
Shailendra (2018) 3 SCC 412, the Three-Judge Bench took a view
that the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation did not consider
several aspects relating to the interpretation of Section 24 of the L.A.
Act, 2013 Act. Pune Municipal Corporation was a judgment by a
Bench of coordinate strength of three Judges. Two of the three learned
D Judges in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra opined prima
facie that the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation appears to be
per incuriam while Shantanagoudar J. dissented on one point.
Consequently, the Bench ordered that the matters could be listed before
the appropriate Bench subject to the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice
E of India. Later, in Indore Development Authority vs. Shyam Verma
(2018) SCC Online SC 3324, this Court considered it appropriate to
again place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India to refer
the issues to be resolved by a Larger Bench. There were other cases
also touching upon the same controversy which were referred to a Larger
Bench and ultimately, in Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal,
F a five-Judge Bench was constituted by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India, which, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed
the following questions for consideration:
“4.1. (1) What is the meaning of the expression “paid”/”tender”
in Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
G in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(“the 2013 Act”) and Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (“the 1894 Act”)? Whether non-deposit of compensation in
court under Section 31(2) of the 1894 Act results into lapse of
acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. What are the
H consequences of non-deposit in court especially when
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 229
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

compensation has been tendered and refused under Section 31(1) A
of the 1894 Act and Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? Whether
such persons after refusal can take advantage of their wrong/
conduct?
4.1. (2) Whether the word “or” should be read as conjunctive or
disjunctive in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act? B
4.1. (3) What is the true effect of the proviso, does it form part of
sub-section (2) or main Section 24 of the 2013 Act?
4.1. (4) What is mode of taking possession under the Land
Acquisition Act and true meaning of expression ‘the physical
possession of the land has not been taken’ occurring in Section C
24(2) of the 2013 Act?
4.1. (5) Whether the period covered by an interim order of a
court concerning land acquisition proceedings ought to be excluded
for the purpose of applicability of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act?
D
4.1. (6) Whether Section 24 of the 2013 Act revives barred and
stale claims?
5. In addition, question of per incuriam and other incidental
questions also to be gone into.”
7. As the L.A. Act, 2013 has repealed the L.A. Act 1894, Section E
24 of L.A. Act, 2013 begins with a non-obstante clause and overrides all
other provisions of L.A. Act, 2013. Section 24 of L.A. Act, 2013 is in
the nature of a saving clause.
8. Submissions were made before the Five-Judge Bench that this
Court should overrule the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation and F
other judgments which have followed the said dictum. After analysing
Section 24(1)(a) and Section 24 (1)(b) of the L.A. Act, 2013 at paragraph
366 of Indore Development Authority, it has been observed as under:
“366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the
questions as under: G
366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case the
award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of commencement
of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of proceedings. Compensation
has to be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 366.2. In case the award has been passed within the window
period of five years excluding the period covered by an interim
order of the court, then proceedings shall continue as provided
under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the 1894 Act as
if it has not been repealed.
B 366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between possession
and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as “and”. The
deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under Section
24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction of
authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of
the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
C compensation has been paid. In other words, in case
possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid
then there is no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid,
possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2)
D of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in
court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the
proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with
respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries
(landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition
E under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under
Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
F acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on
the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of
the 1894 Act.
G 366.5. In case a person has been tendered the compensation
as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open
to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2)
due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court.
The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under
H Section 31(1). The landowners who had refused to accept
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 231
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

compensation or who sought reference for higher A
compensation, cannot claim that the acquisition proceedings
had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act.
366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be
treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b).
366.7. The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act and B
as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of inquest
report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on taking
possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land vests in
State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2) of the
2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no lapse C
under Section 24(2).
366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a deemed
lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities have
failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came D
into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence
of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
computation of five years.
366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise to new E
cause of action to question the legality of concluded proceedings
of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a proceeding pending
on the date of enforcement of the 2013 Act i.e., 1-1-2014. It
does not revive stale and time-barred claims and does not
reopen concluded proceedings nor allow landowners to question
the legality of mode of taking possession to reopen proceedings F
or mode of deposit of compensation in the treasury instead of
court to invalidate acquisition.”
9. However, while doing so in para 365, it was observed as under:
“365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune Municipal
G
Corpn. is hereby overruled and all other decisions in which Pune
Municipal Corpn. has been followed, are also overruled. The
decision in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. cannot be said
to be laying down good law, is overruled and other decisions
following the same are also overruled. In Indore Development
Authority vs. Shailendra, the aspect with respect to the proviso H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A to Section 24(2) and whether “or” has to be read as “nor” or as
“and” was not placed for consideration. Therefore, that decision
too cannot prevail, in the light of the discussion in the present
judgment.”
10. Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment passed in Indore
B Development Authority by the Five-Judge Bench and having regard
to the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments
following Pune Municipal Corporation have now been overruled, the
review petitioners, who are either the acquiring body/State or the
beneficiary have preferred these review petitions.
C 11. The object and purpose of filing these review petitions is to
seek review of the judgment impugned in the review petitions and for
re- hearing of the Special Leave Petitions or the Civil Appeals, as the
case may be, which were disposed of in terms of Pune Municipal
Corporation, in light of the latest pronouncement of this Court in Indore
Development Authority.
D
12. According to Sri Sanjay Poddar, learned senior counsel and
other learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners, on an
interpretation of para 365 of Indore Development Authority, it is clear
that not only the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation is overruled
but all other judgments following the said decision also stand overruled.
E Consequently, the judgements passed by this Court following the dictum
in Pune Municipal Corporation are subject to review and hence these
review petitions have been filed.
13. The main plea of the review petitioners is to recall the
judgments/orders impugned in the review petitions and to restore the
F Civil Appeals or Special Leave Petitions, as the case may be, on the file
of this Court and to rehear the same and to dispose them in terms of the
latest dictum of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Indore
Development Authority.
14. Learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the petitioners
G relied upon Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and Others vs. Dossibai
N.B. Jeejeebhoy AIR 1971 SC 2355; and Assistant Commissioner,
Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited
(2008) 14 SCC 171; in support of their submissions that when a question
of law is altered by a subsequent decision, the earlier decision does not
operate as res judicata. Further, that a decision rendered later on would
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 233
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

have a retrospective effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier A
not accordingly understood.
15. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sriyuth V. Giri, Shyam
Divan, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Vivek Chib and other learned counsel have
vehemently objected to the very maintainability of the review petitions.
This is by contending that having regard to the scope of review as provided B
under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and particularly, the Explanation thereto,
these review petitions are not at all maintainable. In other words, it is
their contention that despite what has been stated in paragraph 365 of
Indore Development Authority, in view of the bar contained in the
Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the review petitions are not
maintainable and the review petitions have to be dismissed in limine. In C
other words, it is contended that the purport of what has been opined in
paragraph 365 is to denude the judgment passed in Pune Municipal
Corporation and all other judgments or orders following Pune Municipal
Corporation of their precedential authority and effect. This implies that
the said judgment cannot be cited as a precedent in future in view of the D
subsequent law being laid down by the Larger Bench in Indore
Development Authority by overruling the judgment in Pune Municipal
Corporation. However, the judgment themselves do not get effaced
and they are binding on the parties to the said cases although they can
no longer be cited as a precedent. Heavy reliance has been placed on
the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to contend that when a E
decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court has
been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of the superior
Court, it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. Thus, the
contention on behalf of the respondents is that the judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following the aforesaid F
judgment, having been overruled, would cease to be a precedent for
future cases. It is submitted that merely because the Larger Bench of
this Court in Indore Development Authority has laid down the new
law by a different interpretation being given to Sub-Section (2) of Section
24 of L.A. Act, 2013, it cannot give rise to a review of the judgment
passed in Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following G
Pune Municipal Corporation.
16. Learned senior counsel for the respondents further submitted
that there is delay in filing the review petitions.

H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 17. Learned senior counsel, Sri Shyam Divan, appearing for one
of the respondents, placed reliance on the two judgments of this Court:
(i) Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and
Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 75, with particular reference to para
52 thereof to contend that having regard to the Explanation
B to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, even an erroneous decision
cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as
the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review
petition is that the order, of which review is sought, suffers
from an error apparent on the face of the order and in
absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/
C order cannot be disturbed. Rajender Kumar vs. Rambhai
(2007) 15 SCC 513, also alludes to the same principle.
(ii) Further, in Beghar Foundation through its Secretary vs.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Ors. (2021) 3 SCC
1, while considering the review petitions filed against the
D final judgment and order passed in Justice K.S.
Puttuswamy vs. Union of India (2019) 1 SCC 1
(Aadhaar – 5 J.), it was observed that there was no case
for review of the said judgment. It was further observed
that, “change in the law or subsequent decisions/
E judgment of a Larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded
as ground for relief.” The review petitions were,
accordingly, dismissed by the majority of the Judges on the
Bench (4:1), while Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J. expressed his
dissenting opinion in the said case.

F (iii) Reliance was also placed on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
and Another vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 3
SCC 1 and Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others
(2013) 8 SCC 320 in support of their submissions.
18. By way of reply, learned senior counsel and learned counsel
G for the review petitioners sought refuge under the expression “for any
other sufficient reason” in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to contend that in
view of the changed circumstances, inasmuch as the dictum in Pune
Municipal Corporation is overruled by the Larger Bench of this Court
and all other judgments following the judgment in Pune Municipal
Corporation have also been overruled, there is good ground to review
H and reopen all previous judgments passed on the basis of the overruled
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 235
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. Hence, these review petitions A
are maintainable and ought to be allowed. In this regard, learned counsel
for the review petitioners placed reliance on The Bengal Immunity
Company Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar AIR 1955 SC 661.
19. Having regard to the rival submissions made, I find that the
bone of contention between the parties is with regard to the maintainability B
of these review petitions bearing in mind the scope and purport of Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC and particularly, the Explanation thereto. In other
words, the point for consideration is, whether, the judgment passed in
Pune Municipal Corporation and all other judgments following the
said dictum, which have been overruled, could be reviewed by entertaining
these review petitions and the said orders be recalled and the said cases C
be reheard and decided in light of Indore Development Authority.
20. At the outset, it is observed that this is not a case where the
question involved is, whether, the judgment in Pune Municipal
Corporation calls for a review or reconsideration. It has already been
reconsidered by this Court, by the Larger Bench in Indore D
Development Authority. The pertinent question involved in this case is,
whether, the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation having been
overruled and all other judgments following Pune Municipal Corporation
having been overruled in Indore Development Authority, would call
for review of all those judgments despite having attained finality between E
the parties. In other words, whether, on the basis of a subsequent decision,
on a pure question of law, the earlier decisions arrived at, on the basis
of law as it was, could now be recalled at the instance of one of the
parties to the earlier decisions.
21. The specimen judgment/Orders sought to be reviewed in the F
instant cases, namely, Civil Appeals and SLPs, read as under:
“1. Leave granted.
2. The issue, in principle, is covered against the appellants by
judgments in Civil Appeal No. 8477of 2016 arising out of
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8467 of 2015 and Civil G
Appeal No. 5811 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) No. 21545 of 2015. The appeals filed by the
requisitioning authority, namely the Delhi Development
Authority, have already been dismissed by this Court.
H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 3. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the
appellants are given a period of one year to exercise its
liberty granted under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
B Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for initiation of
the acquisition proceedings afresh.
5. We make it clear that in case no fresh acquisition
proceedings are initiated within the said period of one
year from today by issuing a Notification under Section
C 11 of the Act, the appellants, if in possession, shall
return the physical possession of the land to the
original land owner.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. No costs.”
(Emphasis by me)
D
22. The order dated 01/07/2016 in SLP (C) CC No. 11422 of
2016 and 11005 of 2016 is as under:
“Delay Condoned Dismissed.”
23. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “decision” as “a
E determination arrived at after consideration of facts, and in legal context,
law”; an “opinion” is defined as “the statement by a Judge or Court of
the decision reached in regard to a cause tried or argued before them,
expounding the law as applied to the case, and detailing the reasons
upon which the judgment is based”. It explains the difference between
a “decision” and “opinion” as follows:
F
“‘Decision’ is not necessarily synonymous with ‘opinion’. A
decision of the court is its judgment; the opinion is the reasons
given for that judgment, or the expression of the views of the
Judge.”
G 24. This Court while considering the difference between the two
expressions, namely, “decision” and “opinion” or view of law stated
that, “it is necessary to bear in mind that the principles in regard to
the highest Court departing from its binding precedent are different
from the grounds on which a ftnal judgment between the parties
can be reconsidered.”
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 237
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

25. When a review application is filed by an aggrieved party, the A
same can be dismissed ex parte without issuing notice to the other side
on the ground that there is no sufficient ground to call upon the opposite
party to show cause as to why review should not be granted. If notice is
issued to the other side, then, after hearing both sides, it is necessary to
consider whether the review petition ought to be allowed or rejected. It
B
is at that stage the maintainability of the review petition would also have
to be considered such as if there is a bar to the very maintainability of
the review petition having regard to the scope to Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC. Then, the review petition has to be dismissed at that stage itself.
But, if the Court is convinced that there is ground for reviewing the order
or judgment impugned, then the review petition has to be allowed by C
recalling the orders sought to be reviewed. Thereafter, the matter has to
be reheard on merits by the Court. After rehearing the case, the Court
may either confirm the original order or modify it. An order made
subsequently whether reversing, confirming or modifying the earlier order
would be superseding the original one. Therefore, it is at the stage prior
D
to rehearing the matter on merits that the maintainability of the review
petition has to be ascertained i.e., whether the grounds for seeking review
enunciated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are made out or not.
26. Article 137 of the Constitution of India speaks about the
review of judgments or orders passed by the Supreme Court of India. It
states that subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or E
any Rule made under Article 145 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme
Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order
made by it. However, the power of the Supreme Court of India to review
its judgment or order is subject to (i) the provisions of any law made by
the Parliament, or (ii) any Rule made under Article 145 of the Constitution F
of India.
27. Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the S.C. Rules, 2013 made by
virtue of Article 145 of the Constitution of India states that, in any civil
case, review lies on any of the grounds stated under Order XLVII Rule
1 CPC. Thus, the scope and power to review a judgment or order by the G
Supreme Court is restricted to the contours of Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC. Further, though the power to review is conferred by the Constitution
and is therefore a Constitutional power, that power is circumscribed by
the CPC and S.C. Rules, 2013 which have been extracted above. Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC states that an aggrieved person -
H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A i) due to discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the person aggrieved or the person seeking
review could not be produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed or order made, or
B ii) due to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record,
or
iii) on account of any other sufficient reason,
may seek review of a judgment or order of this Court.

C 28. Thus, it is noted that any person considering himself aggrieved
can seek review of the judgment or order only on the aforesaid three
grounds and none other. In the instance case, according to petitioners’
counsel, the first and second grounds for review do not apply. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the third ground. The
third ground is “on account of any other sufficient reason”. The said
D expression may mean that the reason must be sufficient to the Court to
which the application for review is made.
29. In the present batch of cases, serious arguments have been
advanced on both sides on, what I consider, the maintainability of these
review petitions revolving around the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule
E 1 CPC. Hence, in my view, the recalling of the judgments passed following
the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation, which is no doubt,
overruled, will have to be reconsidered in light of Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC.
30. On a consideration of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is noted
F that there are three main grounds referred to above on which a review
of a decree or order could be sought by an aggrieved person. Much
emphasis has been laid by the learned senior counsel for the review
petitioners herein, on the expression “sufficient reason” so as to contend
that since Pune Municipal Corporation was decided contrary to the
intent and purport of Section 24(2) of L.A. Act, 2013 and the same has
G
been overruled by a Larger Bench comprising of five Judges in Indore
Development Authority, there is sufficient reason to review all
judgments passed by this Court following Pune Municipal Corporation.
Hence, the present review petitions have been filed although there may
be a delay in doing so.
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 239
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

31. It was further contended that having regard to paragraph 365 A
of the judgment in Indore Development Authority, the dictum in Pune
Municipal Corporation as well as all decisions following Pune
Municipal Corporation have been expressly overruled. Therefore, there
is sufficient reason to review and recall all those erroneous decisions in
light of the subsequent decision in Indore Development Authority.
B
Hence, the review petitions have been filed.
32. While considering the aforesaid submission, it is also necessary
to bear in mind the arguments advanced by learned senior counsel and
counsel on behalf of the respondents as they have drawn our particular
attention to the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. It was
contended that the said Explanation clearly bars a review of a judgment C
on the ground that a subsequent decision has been rendered by a superior
Court, i.e. a Larger Bench of five Judges in the instant case, reversing
or overruling the earlier decision. It was contended that when such a
decision is on a pure question of law, it is not a ground for review of the
judgments which have been overruled by the Larger Bench. It was D
further submitted that the overruled judgments are still binding on the
parties to the said judgments and have attained finality and in view of the
Explanation, they cannot be reopened or reviewed.
33. Applying the Explanation to the facts of the present case, it
was contended that in Indore Development Authority, the judgment E
in Pune Municipal Corporation was overruled on a pure question of
law and further, all other judgments following Pune Municipal
Corporation also stood overruled. But the overruling of the decision in
Pune Municipal Corporation by a subsequent decision of a Larger
Bench of five Judges in Indore Development Authority is not a ground
for review and recall of the very decision in Pune Municipal Corporation F
and all other decisions following Pune Municipal Corporation. It was
submitted that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC bars the
review petition being entertained in the instant cases. Hence, in these
cases, the review petitions may have to be rejected/dismissed.
34. The expression “any other sufficient reason” which is a ground G
for review and which is the sheet anchor of the petitioner’s review petition
has not been defined in the Code. However, the judgments of the
(i) Privy Council in Chajju Ram vs. Neki AIR 1922 P.C.
112; Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi vs. Parath Nath AIR 1934
P.C. 213; H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A (ii) Federal Court in Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter
AIR 1949 FC 106, and,
(iii) This Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most
Rev. Mar Paulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 have
held that words must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds,
B at least analogous to those specified in the Rule”.
35. In Chajju Ram vs. Neki (supra), the Privy Council held that
there cannot be a review on the ground that the judgment proceeded on
an incorrect exposition of law. Further, the Court has no jurisdiction to
order a review because it was of the opinion that a different conclusion
C of law should have been arrived at. It was also observed that if a decision
is erroneous in law that is not a ground for ordering review. If a court
has decided a point erroneously, the error could not be one apparent on
the face of the record or even analogous to it. Therefore, subsequent
events or the fact that the Court took a different view in a subsequent
case is not a sufficient reason for granting review (vide Explanation to
D Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC).
36. Although, the expression “for any other sufficient reason” in
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to take within its scope and
ambit many circumstances or situations which do not fall in the earlier
part of the Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which are the two grounds (i) and
E (ii) referred to above, in my view, the Explanation to the said provision
carves out an exception to the expression “for any other sufficient reason”
as a ground for review of a judgment in ground (iii).
The Explanation being in the nature of an exception is to be read
outside the scope of the expression “for any other sufficient reason” in
F Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In other words, if, on a question of law, a
decision of a Court is reversed by a subsequent decision of a superior
Court (Larger Bench in the instant case) and the same is reopened on
the basis of the said subsequent decision there would be no finality of
judgments of the Court even between the parties thereto. It is, hence,
G observed that even an erroneous judgment or order is binding on the
parties thereto even if subsequently that very judgment is reversed in a
subsequent decision of a superior Court. Otherwise, there would be chaos
and no finality of any decision of a Court which is against public policy.
Judgments rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction as per the
prevailing law are binding on the parties to the said judgment. Merely
H because that judgment is subsequently overruled by a subsequent decision
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 241
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

of a superior Court in any other case, the same shall not be a ground for A
review of such judgment.
37. In this context, the object and purpose of the Explanation to
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC cannot be lost sight of and it needs to be
emphasised. In my view, the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is
in the nature of an exception to the expression “for any other sufficient B
reason”. This would mean that if, in the mind of a Court there is a
sufficient reason for the review of a judgment, it cannot be on the
ground/reason covered in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Thus, the circumstances mentioned in the Explanation would be an
exception and is outside the scope and ambit of “for any other sufficient
reason”. C

38. An Explanation is at times appended to a Section to explain the
object and content as well as the meaning of words contained in the
Section. An Explanation may be added to include something within or to
exclude something from the ambit of the main enactment or the
connotation of some words occurring in it. Even a negative Explanation D
which excludes certain types or a category from the ambit of the Section
may have the effect of showing that the category leaving aside the
excepted types is included within it. An Explanation can also be added to
serve as a proviso to the main Section vide Y.P. Chawla and Others
vs. M.P. Tiwari and another AIR 1992 SC 1360. When an Explanation E
is in the nature of a proviso, it is used to remove special cases from the
general provision and provide for them especially. Sometimes an
Explanation is added to clarify a doubtful point of law as in the instant
case the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has been inserted by
the amendment made in the year 1976. [Source: G.P. Singh’s
“Principles of Statutory Interpretation” – 15th Edition]. F

39. It is also in the nature of an exception intended to restrain the
enacting clause to particular cases. The Explanation in the instant case
being in the nature of a proviso is a qualifying or excepting provision to
what is stated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which state the grounds for
seeking a review. Hence, the object and intendment of the proviso must G
be given its full effect. The object and purpose of the Explanation can be
related to the following three maxims:
(i) Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa (No man
should be vexed twice for the same cause);
H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A (ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit ftnis litium (It is in the interest
of the State that there should be an end to a litigation);
and
(iii) Res judicata pro veritate occipitur (A judicial decision
must be accepted as correct).
B These maxims would indicate that there must be an end to litigation
otherwise the rights of persons would be in an endless confusion and
justice would suffer.
40. At the same time, there are a line of decisions which have
held that exercising power of review for “for any other sufficient reason”
C must be analogous to the two reasons mentioned in the provision therein,
namely, –
1) who from the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was
not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him
D at the time when the decree was passed or order was made;
or
2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record.
41. The Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC states that the
E
fact that a decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the
Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision
of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the
review of such judgment. Thus, the bar is for a Court to review its
judgment, when a Court superior to it has subsequently reversed or
F modified a judgment on a question of law. As far as this Court is
concerned, a superior Court would mean a Larger Bench of this Court
which would pass a judgment or order contrary to the judgments sought
to be reviewed.
42. However, in taxation matters, the position is slightly different.
G In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India (2006) 3 SCC 1,
it was observed that overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent
lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question.
That in our judicial system, it is open to a Court of superior jurisdiction or
strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited to
act as an authority to overrule such a decision. But this overruling would
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 243
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to A
an earlier lis. In that lis, the principle of res judicata would continue to
operate. But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the
same issue as an earlier year, the Court can differ from the view expressed
if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam.
43. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners relied upon the B
following judgments in their arguments as well as reply arguments:
(a) Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal vs. Dossibai N.B.
Jeejeebhoy (supra) was a question related to jurisdiction of
a Court which cannot be deemed to have been finally
determined by an erroneous decision of the court. It was C
observed that if by an erroneous interpretation of the statute
the court holds that it has no jurisdiction, the question would
not, operate as res judicata. Similarly, by an erroneous
decision if the court assumes jurisdiction which it does not
possess under the statute, the question cannot operate as
res judicata between the parties, whether the cause of action D
in the subsequent litigation is the same or otherwise, because
if those decisions are considered as conclusive, it will assume
the status of a special rule of law applicable to the parties
relating to the jurisdiction of the court in derogation of the
rule declared by the Legislature. Reliance on the said decision E
is placed as the controversy involved therein, was in the
context of the doctrine of res judicata, wherein, it was
observed that the previous decision on a matter in issue alone
is res judicata. When it is said that a previous decision is
res judicata, it is meant that the right claimed has been
adjudicated upon and cannot again be placed in contest F
between the same parties. It was further observed that a
previous decision on a matter in issue is a composite
decision: the decision on law cannot be dissociated from
the decision on facts on which the right is founded. A decision
on an issue of law will be a res judicata in a subsequent G
proceeding between the same parties, if the cause of action
of the subsequent proceeding is the same as in the previous
proceeding, but not when the cause of action is different,
nor when the law has since the earlier decision been altered
by a competent authority, nor when the decision relates to
H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A the jurisdiction of the Court to try the earlier proceeding, nor
when the earlier decision declares valid a transaction which
is prohibited by law. Therefore, if a subsequent proceeding
is initiated between the parties in these cases, then the
decision arrived at in terms of the impugned judgment in
these review petitions would be binding on the parties. This
B
does not mean that a decision rendered between the parties
in Pune Municipal Corporation or decision following Pune
Municipal Corporation can be reviewed or recalled by filing
review petitions on the ground that subsequently in Indore
Development Authority, Pune Municipal Corporation has
C been overruled and sought to be contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners. The same would be contrary to
the Explanation in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
(b) Similarly, reliance was placed on Assistant Commissioner,
Income Tax, Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock
D Exchange Limited (supra). A judgment which was
pronounced earlier by a superior Court and holding the field,
was not noticed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
subsequently, while deciding a matter. Hence, it was observed
that there was a mistake apparent from the record as there
was non-consideration of a binding decision of superior Court
E by the said Tribunal. Hence, the same could be rectified
under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The above decision is also not applicable in the instant
case for the reason that when Pune Municipal Corporation
was decided there was no judgment of Indore Development
F Authority. The decision of the Larger Bench in Indore
Development Authority is not prior to but subsequent to
the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. The judgment
and decision in Pune Municipal Corporation dated
08.02.2018 held the field till the judgment in Indore
G Development Authority which was pronounced on
06.03.2020. Therefore, the judgment in Indore Development
Authority being a subsequent decision cannot give rise to
review and recall of the decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation as well as other judgments following the
aforesaid case, on the basis that judgment in Pune Municipal
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 245
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

Corporation has been overruled in the subsequent case, A
namely, Indore Development Authority.
(c) In Shakuntla Devi vs. Kamla (2005) 5 SCC 390, a
declaratory decree was granted on the basis of law as it
stood then i.e. the date when the declaratory decree was
passed. But by the time the second declaratory decree was B
passed between the same parties in a subsequent suit, this
Court had declared the law under Section 14 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 holding that the estate of women gets
enlarged in terms of the said provision. Since the law on the
date of the second declaratory decree was contrary to the
earlier declaration of law made by this Court, the earlier C
decree in the first suit would not operate as res judicata
even between the same parties when the second suit on a
different cause of action between the same parties is being
considered. Thus, in the above circumstances, the principle
of res judicata would not apply. It is in the context of the D
principle of res judicata, it was observed by this Court that
if the earlier declaratory decree which is sought to be made
the basis of res judicata, is delivered by a Court without
jurisdiction or is contrary to the existing law at the time and
the issue comes up for reconsideration, such earlier declaratory
decree cannot be held to be res judicata in a subsequent E
case unless, of course, protected by any special enactment.
Therefore, it was held in the said case that if a subsequent
suit is based on an earlier declaratory decree and such decree
is contrary to the law prevailing at the time of the consideration
of the second suit as to its legality or is a decree granted by F
a Court which had no jurisdiction to grant such decree,
principles of res judicata under Section 11 CPC will not be
attracted. It is then open to the defendant in the second suit
to establish that the declaratory decree relied upon by the
plaintiff granted in the earlier suit is not based on good law
or that the Court granting such decree did not have the G
jurisdiction to grant such decree. In the aforesaid case, the
second suit was filed for possession of the suit properties
on the basis of a declaratory decree obtained earlier in the
first suit which was not found to be a lawful decree as per
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A the law prevailing at the time when the second suit was
considered.
The aforesaid decision does not apply to the present
case as herein, review petitions have been filed seeking
review of the judgments passed by this Court on the basis of
B the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation which has been
subsequently overruled by this Court in Indore Development
Authority on a pure question of law and the review petitions
are hit by the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. This
is not a case where a subsequent fresh petition has been
filed before the High Court seeking reliefs based on the
C judgment of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation. It
is necessary to emphasise that these review petitions have
been filed before this Court to review the judgments/orders
passed by this Court on the basis of the judgment in Pune
Municipal Corporation which has been overruled by a
D subsequent judgment in Indore Development Authority. In
my view, these review petitions are not maintainable in view
of the bar contained in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule
1 CPC.
(d) Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
E the expression “sufficient reason” found in Order XLVII
Rule 1 CPC being a ground for review in these cases. In
this regard, he placed reliance on Board of Control for
Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club, wherein it was
observed that an application for review would also be
maintainable if there exists sufficient reason thereof. What
F would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts
and circumstances of the case. In the said case, reliance
was placed on a judgment of the Privy Council in Moran
Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose
Athanasius (supra), dealing with the limitations in the
G application of review and it was observed that the expression
“any other sufficient reason” must mean “a reason sufficient
on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule.”
In Netaji Cricket Club (supra), this Court recognised
that there was a mistake on the part of this Court which
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 247
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

would include a mistake in the understanding of the nature A
of an undertaking given to this Court and therefore, the
review application was entertained by accepting the mistake
in the nature and purport of the undertaking given before
this Court. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the review petition
was entertained.
B
(e) In the same context, Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2000)
6 SCC 224 could be adverted to wherein it has been held
that the power to review is not an appeal in disguise but is a
creature of statute and not an inherent power. In the said
case, the question was with regard to the consideration of a
subsequent event to mould the relief accordingly. It was C
observed that while exercising its review jurisdiction, the
Court can take into consideration a subsequent event for
the purpose of rectifying its own mistake. A party cannot be
made to suffer on account of an act of the Court which is
expressed in the well-recognised maxim of equity, namely, D
actus curiae neminem gravabit which means an act of the
Court shall prejudice no man. This maxim is founded upon
justice and good sense or otherwise a man would be
compelled to do what he cannot possibly perform, which the
law does not permit (lex non cogit ad impossibilia). The
above proposition would fall within the scope of “any other E
sufficient reason” when there is a mistake of the Court which
has led to injustice. That is a situation which does not take in
a situation covered by the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule
1 CPC, which, as already observed, is an exception to Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Hence, the aforesaid judgment does F
not apply to the instance cases.
44. The aforesaid cases turn on their own facts and do not fall
within the scope of exception which is in the nature of an Explanation.
The aforesaid judgments cannot be a precedent in the instant case where
the review petition has been filed in order to set at naught the impugned G
orders following the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation passed
by this Court which held the field till it was subsequently overruled in
Indore Development Authority. Having regard to the Explanation
provided in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC review in these cases is
impermissible.
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A 45. A few judgments of this Court could be referred to at this
stage in support of the view that I wish to take in this case:
a) In Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC
78, it has been observed that one of the parameters
prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC for allowing the
B review petition for rehearing the case is “on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
or for any other sufficient reason”. The former part of the
rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and
the later to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or
on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them
C postulates a rehearing of the dispute because a party had
not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps
have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding
precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable
verdict. It was further observed categorically that an error
D apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction
to review must be such an error which may strike one on a
mere looking at the record and would not require any long-
drawn process of reasoning.
b) In fact, in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs.
E Government of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372: (1964) 5 SCR
174, it has been observed that there is a distinction which
is real between a mere erroneous decision and a decision
which could be characterised as vitiated by “error
apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is corrected but lies only
F for a patent error without any elaborate argument that one
could point to the error and therefore, a clear case of error
apparent on the face of the record would be made out.
c) Reliance could also be placed on Union of India vs. Mohd.
Nayyar Khalil (2000) 9 SCC 252, wherein it was
G observed that if an order following a Three-Judge Bench
decision is passed and at that time the Three-Judge Bench
decision had not been upset, even in the future or later if
the Constitution Bench takes a contrary view, it would be
a subsequent judgment which cannot be a ground for review
H in view of the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 249
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

d) Similarly, in Shanti Devi vs. State of Haryana (RP Dy. A
No. 1249 of 1999) in Civil Appeal No. 14608 of 1996 as
reported in (1999) 5 SCC 703, this Court held that the
contention that the judgment sought to be reviewed was
overruled in another case, subsequently, is no reason for
reviewing the said decision in view of the Explanation to
B
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said review petition was
dismissed both on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay
as well as on merits.
e) In Usha Bharti vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 7 SCC
663, it was held that the Supreme Court, in exercise of its
power of review may in an appropriate case reopen the C
case and rehear the entire matter but while doing so the
Court must remain conscious of the provisions contained in
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC as well as the Rules framed by
the Supreme Court. Thus, the expression “for any other
sufficient reason” has been intentionally used in Order D
XLVII Rule 1 CPC by the Legislature to cater to possible
exceptional cases in which injustice may have been meted
out.
46. The following relevant judgments could also be discussed
at this stage: E
(a) Reliance could be placed on State of Gujarat & Anr. vs.
Justice R.A. Mehta (Retd.) (2013) 3 SCC 1, wherein
following several earlier decisions of this Court, it was
observed that a decision does not lose its authority “merely
because it was badly argued, inadequately considered F
or fallaciously reasoned.”
(b) In fact, in Madan Mohan Pathak & Anr. vs. Union of
India AIR 1978 SC 803; (1978) 2 SCC 50, a Seven-
Judge Bench of this Court considered the question whether
Parliament enacting an Act consequent upon the judgment G
of the Calcutta High Court would unsettle the binding effect
of the said judgment. In that case, the appeal filed against
the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was not pressed
before this Court and the said judgment was allowed to
become final. This Court held that there was nothing in the
H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A Act passed subsequent to the judgment of the Calcutta High
Court which had nullified the effect of the same or which
could unsettle the judgment or take away the binding
character of the same. In the circumstances, it was held
that Life Insurance Corporation which was a party in that
case was liable to make the payment of cash bonus for the
B
year 1975-1976 to its Class III and IV employees in
accordance with the said judgment of the Calcutta High
Court as it was not absolved of the obligations imposed by
the said judgment despite the Parliament passing an Act
subsequent thereto on the ground that the judgment of the
C Calcutta High Court was binding on the parties thereto.
(c) Further, in Neelima Srivastava vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2021) SCC online 610, reference was made to
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006)
4 SCC 1 (“Uma Devi 3”), in which the Constitution Bench
D had stated, “it is also clarifted that those decisions which
run counter to the principle settled in this decision, or
in which directions running counter to what we have
held herein, will stand denuded of its status as
precedent.” It was observed in Neelima Srivastava that
the import of the aforesaid observations was that earlier
E decisions running counter to the principles settled in the
decision of Uma Devi could not be treated as a precedent.
This does not mean that the judgment of a competent Court
delivered prior to the decision in Uma Devi which attained
finality and is binding inter-se between the parties need not
F be implemented. It was further observed that, “mere
overruling of the principles, on which the earlier
judgment was passed, by a subsequent judgment of
higher forum will not have the effect of uprooting the
ftnal adjudication between the parties and set it at
naught.”
G
Moreover, it was held that there is a distinction between
overruling of a principle and reversal of a judgment. The
judgment between the parties has to be assailed and
overcome in a manner known to or recognised by law by a
higher forum. Mere overruling of principles by a subsequent
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 251
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

judgment will not dilute the binding effect of the decision on A
parties to the judgment overruled. It was held that
observation at paragraph 54 of Uma Devi case does not
absolve the parties in other cases to comply with the
directions issued prior to the judgment in Uma Devi’s
case.
B
(d) Reference can also be made to Union of India vs. Major
S.P. Sharma (2014) 6 SCC 351, in which it was stated
that “a decision rendered by a competent Court cannot
be challenged in collateral proceedings for the reason
that if it is permitted to do so there would be confusion
and chaos and the ftnality of the proceeding would cease C
to have any meaning”. It was further observed that it is
not permissible in law for the parties to reopen concluded
judgments of the Court as the same may not only tantamount
to an abuse of the process of the Court but would have a
far-reaching adverse effect on the administration of justice. D
(e) When reconsideration of a judgment of this Court is sought,
there are two limitations which have been observed – one
jurisdictional and the other self-imposed. The same has been
explained in Natural Resources Allocation, in Re:
Special reference no. 1 of 2012, speaking through D.K. E
Jain, J., as under:
“The first limitation is that a decision of this Court could
be reviewed only under Article 137 or a curative petition
and in no other way. Once a lis between parties is decided,
the operative decree can only be opened in review. F
Overruling the judgment— as a precedent—does not reopen
the decree.
The second limitation, a self-imposed rule of judicial
discipline, was that overruling the opinion of the Court on a
legal issue does not constitute sitting in appeal, but is done G
only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the earlier
decision is per incuriam or is delivered in the absence of
relevant or material facts or if it is manifestly wrong and
capable of causing public mischief.”

H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A It was further observed that “in fact, the overruling of a principle
of law is not an outcome of appellate jurisdiction but a consequence
of its inherent power. This inherent power can be exercised as long
as a previous decree vis-à-vis a lis inter partes is not affected”.
(f) Further, a Seven-Judge Bench of this Court speaking through
B Chandrachud, C.J. in Special Courts Bill, 1978, In RE
(1979) 1 SCC 380, observed that it is always open to this
Court to re- examine the question already decided by it and
to overrule, if necessary, the view earlier taken by it. But
insofar as all other Courts in the territory of India are
concerned, they ought to be bound by the view expressed
C by this Court even in the exercise of its advisory jurisdiction
under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India.
Although the principle of stare decisis is not applicable
to this Court, on the strength of Article 137 of the
Constitution of India, this Court, in a subsequent judgment,
D can overrule a previous judgment but the same would not
unsettle the dictum in the judgment overruled inter partes.
Further, the overruled judgment which has held the field is
bound to be followed in all other cases till the subsequent
judgment overruling the earlier judgment is passed.
E (g) In State of West Bengal vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008)
8 SCC 612, Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunal
Act, 1985 came up for consideration in the context of the
power of review. While dealing with the said question, it
was held that a Tribunal established under the aforesaid
F Act is entitled to review its order or decision if either of the
grounds enumerated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC was
available. In that case, the question, whether, the subsequent
contra judgment by the same or a superior Court on a point
of law can be treated as an error apparent on the face of
the record for the purpose of review of an earlier judgment,
G was considered as there was a divergence of opinion among
the High Courts on the said question. It was observed that
in view of there being a dichotomy of opinion on the issue,
the Law Commission took cognizance of the same and
suggested an amendment to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
H which led to the insertion of the Explanation after Order
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 253
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

XLVII Rule 2 CPC. The following cases were referred to A
in the aforesaid judgment:
(i) Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter 1949 FCR 36,
a Five-Judge Bench decision of the Federal Court was
alluded to, wherein it was observed that if a decision is
erroneous in law, the same is certainly no ground for B
ordering review. Moreover, if the case had been decided
erroneously, the error could not be construed as being one
apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to
exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC.
C
(ii) Reliance was also placed on Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi
(1997) 8 SCC 715 and it was observed that there is a
clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error
apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be
corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be
corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review D
petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be
“an appeal in disguise”.
(iii) In Nalagarh Dehati Coop. Transport Society Ltd. vs.
Beli Ram AIR 1981 HP 1, a Full Bench of the Himachal
Pradesh High Court considered the Explanation and held E
that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court or a
Larger Bench of the same Court taking a contrary view on
the point covered by the judgment does not amount to a
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of the
judgment sought to be reviewed. F
(iv) Reference was also made to Gyan Chandra Dwivedi vs.
2nd ADJ, Kanpur AIR 1987 All 40, in which it was
observed that almost all the High Courts except Kerala
High Court were unanimous in their opinion of the fact that
if a point of law in a judgment has been altered by a G
subsequent decision of the superior Court in another case,
the same could not afford a valid ground for the review of
the judgment.
(v) Further, with reference to Netaji Cricket Club (supra), on
which reliance has been placed by the review petitioners, it
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A was observed that the consideration of the exercise of
review jurisdiction in that case, based on a subsequent event
was confined to purely the facts of the said case involving
a controversy between rival Cricket Associations. Hence,
it was opined that the decision in Netaji Cricket Club could
not be applied as a general ratio.
B
While delineating the principles from the aforesaid
judgments, inter alia, the following principles relevant to
the instant cases are reiterated:
i) the expression “any other sufficient reason” appearing
C in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has to be interpreted in
light of other grounds specified in the said provision.
ii) an erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the
guise of exercise of power of review.
(h) In a recent judgement dated 18.08.2022 in Civil Appeals
D Nos. 5503-5504 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9602-
9603 of 2022 along with Civil Appeal No. 5505 of 2022
arising out of SLP (C) No. 11290 of 2022, a Three-Judge
Bench of this Court in the case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy
vs. V. Narayana Reddy (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1034
E had made specific reference to the aforementioned cases
of Chajju Ram vs. Neki AIR 1922 P.C 112 and Moran
Mar Basselios Catholics vs. Most Rev. Mar Paulose
Athanasius (supra) wherein the words “any other
sufficient reason appearing in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC”
was defined to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at
F least analogous to those specified in the Rule.” In making
reference to these cases, the Three-Judge Bench reiterated
that an essential principle for exercising review jurisdiction
under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is that the review will be
maintainable for “any other sufficient reason”, and has
G narrowed the scope of this ground to mean a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified
in the rule.
(i) In the aforesaid case Union of India vs. Sandur
Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337
has also been adverted to wherein this Court delineated on
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 255
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

some of the grounds as to when the review will not be A
maintainable as under: -
“(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications,
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import,
B
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case,
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice, C
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and
corrected but lies only for patent error,
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review, D
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and
searched,
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be E
permitted to be advanced in the review petition, and
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had
been negatived.”
F
47. In fact, in State of Haryana vs. G.D. Goenka Tourism
Corporation Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585, this Court directed
that pending a final decision on making a reference to a Larger Bench
on the interpretation of Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013, the High Courts
ought not to deal with any case relating to the said interpretation.
Therefore, between 21.02.2018 till the date of pronouncement of the G
judgment by the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority i.e.,
06.03.2020, the High Courts were requested not to deal with cases arising
under Section 24(2) of the L.A. Act, 2013, and its applicability to
acquisition arising under L.A. Act, 1894, i.e. only insofar as acquisition
initiated under L.A. Act, 1894. But insofar as cases which were decided H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A prior to the aforesaid directions issued by this Court or the High Court
or cases decided even by this Court on the strength of the dictum in
Pune Municipal Corporation cannot be set at naught between the
parties to those cases. The judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation
having been overruled, it would only lose its value as a precedent
subsequent to the dictum of the Larger Bench in Indore Development
B
Authority and therefore, cannot be cited as a precedent.
48. Hence, in my view, having regard to the scope and ambit of
the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, these review petitions are
not maintainable and the judgment and the orders of this Court ought not
be reviewed and the review petitions are liable to be dismissed.
C
49. It is also important to bear in mind that in various High Courts
across the country following the judgment in Pune Municipal
Corporation, Writ Petitions have been disposed of and the said decisions
passed in the said writ petitions or intra court appeals, as the case may
be, may have attained finality and binding on the parties thereto. If these
D review petitions are allowed and are held to be maintainable there would
be hundreds of review petitions which would be filed seeking review of
the decisions passed by various High Courts in writ petitions following
the judgment in Pune Municipal Corporation. This would open a
Pandora’s Box and upset the binding nature of the decisions between
E the parties and be contrary to the doctrine of finality in litigation.
50. In Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra (supra), a
majority of two Hon’ble Judges in paragraph 217 while opining that, the
judgment rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation and other decisions
following Pune Municipal Corporation are per incuriam observed
F that the “decisions rendered on the basis of Pune Municipal Corporation
are open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of this decision”.
However, the Larger Bench in Indore Development Authority did not
observe the above, either in paragraph 365 of the judgment or any other
paragraph. In fact, the reason as to why a Larger Bench of five Judges
was constituted, was because a majority of 2:1 in Indore Development
G Authority vs. Shailendra had taken a view that Pune Municipal
Corporation was per incuriam and also the decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation was by a Two-Judge Bench. Therefore, in order to make
an authoritative pronouncement on the question of law concerning the
interpretation of Section 24(2) of L.A. Act, 2013 and since there were
H many orders passed by this Court questioning the correctness of the
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING 257
DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.]

decision in Pune Municipal Corporation, a Larger Bench of five A
Judges was constituted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Now, the
unanimous judgment of the Larger Bench of five Judges holds the field.
However, in paragraph 365 of the said judgment or in any other paragraph,
there is no observation that on overruling the decision in Pune Municipal
Corporation as well as all decisions following Pune Municipal
B
Corporation, the overruled decisions have to be reviewed. The said
observation is conspicuous by its absence obviously for the reason that
such a review is impermissible having regard to the Explanation to Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC which aspect has been elaborately discussed above.
In fact, the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC has not been noticed
by the two learned Judges constituting the majority in Indore C
Development Authority vs. Shailendra.
51. There is another aspect which ought to be considered. That in
two matters i.e., in the very case of Pune Municipal Corporation
(decided on 08.02.2018) which has been overruled by Indore
Development Authority (decided on 06.03.2020) by a Bench of three D
Judges but the judgment has also been recalled vide Order dated
16.07.2020. Similarly, another judgement dated 31.08.2016 passed by
this Court following Pune Municipal Corporation has been recalled
by order dated 15.02.2022 by this very Bench. I must be forthright in
saying that the recalling of the said Orders/Judgment dated 08.02.2018
and 31.08.2016 was done so in the absence of any arguments being E
advanced on the maintainability of review petitions itself as in the present
cases and without taking into consideration the Explanation to Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. I find that the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1
CPC is a bar to the very maintainability of these review petitions in
these cases. Hence, before hearing the Civil Appeals / Special Leave F
Petitions on merits, the Orders passed recalling the decision passed
earlier would call for reconsideration.
All judgments and orders which have been recalled till date
subsequent to the judgment in Indore Development Authority on the
basis that Pune Municipal Corporation was incorrectly decided are G
also not in accordance with law in view of the discussion made above.
52. Having held that the judgments/orders sought to be reviewed
by the petitioners is impermissible in law, the ground realities would also
have to be now taken into consideration on account of the passage of
time. It is noted that Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013 is in the nature of H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R.

A a saving clause which is evident on a reading of the same, including the
proviso to Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the L.A. Act, 2013. The object
is to save the acquisition as far as possible. Possibly taking a cue from
the proviso, this Court in the impugned judgments reserved liberty to the
petitioners herein to initiate acquisition proceedings afresh within one
year in some of the cases failing which the land was to be returned to the
B
land owners if in possession of the review petitioners herein. Thus, if no
fresh acquisition proceedings are initiated within the said period of one
year by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the L.A. 2013 Act and
if the review petitioners herein are in possession of the land, the physical
possession thereof shall be returned to original land owners.
C 53. In the circumstances, the only relief that can be granted to the
review petitioners/applicants is to extend the period for initiation of
acquisition under the provisions of L.A. Act, 2013 to a period of one
year from today. Till then, in those cases where physical possession of
the land has already been taken over by the acquiring body or has been
D handed over to the beneficiary the same shall continue to remain with
the acquiring body or the beneficiary, as the case may be.
54. Thus, only a limited relief is being given to the review petitioners/
applicants and impugned judgments/orders of this Court are not being
reviewed in the review petitions. There is a delay in filing the same in
E certain cases. This is owing to the passage of time from the date of
passing the judgments/orders sought to be reviewed and the uncertainty
in the interpretation of Section 24 (2) of L.A. Act, 2013 and due to
Covid-19 and one year time being granted to initiate fresh acquisition, in
the impugned order itself. Hence, the said delay is condoned.

F 55. Where no such direction has been issued in the impugned
orders and the Special Leave Petitions have been dismissed, the petitioners
are at liberty to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act,
2013, if so advised.
56. In the result, the review petitions are disposed of in the above
G terms.
No costs.

Nidhi Jain Matter be placed before Hon’ble CJI.
(Assisted by : Tamana, LCRA)

H