GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & Anr. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LIMITED & Ors.

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 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 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 Corporation Corporation Ltd. (2018) 3 SCC 585 – referred to.

G. P. Singh’s “Principles of Statutory Interpretation” – 15th Edition. Case Law Reference [2014] 1 SCR 783 (2018) 1 SCC 733 [2018] 2 SCR 1 F [1970] 3 SCR 830 [2008] 13 SCR 421 referred to referred to referred to referred to referred to Para 5 Para 6 Para 6 Para 14 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 DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. 213 [1955] SCR 603 referred to Para 18 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) [1992] 2 SCR 440 [2006] 2 SCR 823 referred to referred to Para 38 Para 42 (2005) 5 SCC 390 referred to Para 43 (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) (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) [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) [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) [2013] 2 SCR 1045 referred to Para 46 (h) (i) (2018) 3 SCC 585 referred to [2020] 3 SCR 1 followed Para 47 Para 51 A B C D E F G 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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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. 8545 of 2016, Review Petition No. 428 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 9598 B C D E F G H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPT. v.

M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. 215 of 2016, Review Petition No. 429 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 11256 of 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. 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 A B C D E F G H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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: M. R. SHAH, J. ORDER

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.

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.

All these applications under Article 137 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) have been 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.

Shri Sanjay Poddar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf 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 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 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 Constitution Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 217 not only the decision rendered in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) 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 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 (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 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 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 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.

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 A B C D E F G H 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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.

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 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 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 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/ 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 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 the possession of the lands in question back to the original landowners GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 219 and thereby the lands in question shall not be used for the public purpose 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 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 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 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.

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 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 (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. A B C D E F G H 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H

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 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 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 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 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 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. 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) does not aid the review petitioners. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 221

5.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for 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 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, (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 (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 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 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 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 A B C D E F G H 222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. 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 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 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.

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 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 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 open to be reviewed in appropriate cases on the basis of the said decision.

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 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.

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 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 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 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 public authorities are to be given an opportunity to put forward their case afresh, which shall be in the larger public interest.

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 A B C D E F G H GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [M. R. SHAH, J.] 225 Appeals are hereby ordered to be restored to their original file. Let the 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 nor expressed anything on merits in favour of either of the parties.

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 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.

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 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 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.’ ****** 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 A B C D E F G H 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H 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 admissible under the Rules.’ ****** ‘Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC-

1. Application for review of judgment. — (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 (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 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 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. 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) GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI THR. THE SECRETARY, LAND AND BUILDING DEPT. v. M/S. K.L. RATHI STEELS LTD. [B. V. NAGARATHNA, J.] 227

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, 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:

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,— (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 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 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: 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 B C D E F G H 228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 6 S.C.R. A with the provisions of this Act.