Review jurisdiction and binding precedent: failure to consider controlling authority and stare decisis justified recall of the earlier judgment.

Review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot operate as a disguised appeal, but recall is justified where a material error apparent on the face of the record is shown. The Supreme Court noted that the earlier judgment had not considered the binding Constitution Bench ruling in Bhagat Ram on the effect of Sections 23-A and 24 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, under which vesting and modification of rights do not occur until possession changes. It also failed to address the Full Bench reasoning in Jai Singh II and the plea based on stare decisis. That non-consideration was treated as a material error, so review was held maintainable, the earlier judgment was recalled, and the appeal was restored for fresh hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record because the earlier judgment did not consider the binding effect of the Constitution Bench decision in Bhagat Ram, the reasoning of the Full Bench in Jai Singh II, and the doctrine of stare decisis.

Analysis: The review jurisdiction is narrow and cannot be used as a disguised appeal, but a judgment may be recalled where a material and manifest error is shown. The earlier judgment was found to have proceeded without dealing with the controlling Constitution Bench ruling in Bhagat Ram on the effect of Sections 23-A and 24 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, under which vesting and modification of rights do not occur until possession changes. The earlier judgment also failed to answer the Full Bench's reasoning in Jai Singh II based on prior authorities and long-settled understanding of bachat land, including the plea founded on stare decisis. That non-consideration was treated as a material error affecting the soundness of the decision.

Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the earlier judgment was liable to be recalled.

Final Conclusion: The prior appellate decision stood recalled and the appeal was restored for fresh hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider a binding precedent directly governing the issue, or the settled line of authority forming the basis of the controversy, constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review and recall.

---