2024 (5) TMI 1667 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope of review jurisdiction and error apparent on record in Article 31A proviso challenge leading to recall of judgment

The Supreme Court reiterates that review jurisdiction is limited to narrow grounds such as discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the ... Scope of review jurisdiction - Error apparent on the face of the record - Article 31-A second proviso - Acquisition by the State versus modification or extinguishment of rights - Sections 23-A and 24 of the Consolidation Act - vesting contingent on change of possession - Bachat land (surplus/unutilized land) and redistribution - Doctrine of stare decisis - HELD THAT:- The scope of review jurisdiction has been delineated by this Court in a catena of judgments. We would not like to burden the present judgment by reproducing all those judgments. This Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others [2013 (8) TMI 912 - SUPREME COURT]] after surveying the earlier law laid down by this Court has summarized the principles 'When the review will be maintainable: (i) 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; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. (iii) Any other sufficient reason.' It is thus settled that the review would be permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason is made out. We are also equally aware of the fact that the review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. The review of the judgment would be permissible only if a material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. We are also aware that such an error should be an error apparent on the face of the record and should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. In the light of the aforesaid principles, we will have to examine the present case. The background in which Jai Singh II [2003 (3) TMI 785 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] has been decided has already been stated by us in the beginning. In the first round of litigation, the High Court had held the provisions of Section 2(g)(6) of the 1961 Act to be unconstitutional being violative of second proviso to Article 31-A of the Constitution of India. This Court in the first round has set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and remanded the matter for deciding the factual aspect as to whether the lands in question were within the ceiling limit or not. In our considered view, the non-consideration of the reasoning given by the Full Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II, that on account of more than 100 decisions rendered by various Benches of the High Court, the doctrine of stare decisis is applicable, would also be an error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, we are of the considered view that the JUR needs to be recalled on the aforesaid grounds mentioned by us. The Review Petition is allowed. Issues: (i) Whether the review petition is maintainable and whether the judgment and order of this Court dated 7th April 2022 (JUR) contains a material error apparent on the face of the record by failing to apply or distinguish the Constitution Bench decision in Bhagat Ram and the Full Bench reasoning in Jai Singh II, thereby warranting recall of the JUR and restoration of the appeal to file.Analysis: The Court reiterates the limited scope of review: review lies only for discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason analogous to these grounds. The Court examined whether the JUR materially erred by not addressing the binding Constitution Bench ratio in Bhagat Ram that, inter alia, management and control under Section 23-A of the Consolidation Act do not vest in the Panchayat until possession has changed under Section 24 and rights are not modified or extinguished until possession has changed. The Court further considered the Full Bench judgment in Jai Singh II, which relied on Bhagat Ram and a line of High Court decisions holding that unutilized (Bachat) lands not reserved/earmarked in the consolidation scheme continue to vest with proprietors and are subject to redistribution. The Court found that the JUR did not meaningfully engage with paragraph 5 of Bhagat Ram or the reasoning of the Full Bench in Jai Singh II (including stare decisis arguments), and therefore failed to explain why those binding authorities did not control the issue decided in JUR. Such non-consideration and departure from binding precedent without explanation was assessed against the standard for review as a material, manifest error apparent on the face of the record that undermines the soundness of the JUR.Conclusion: The review petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 7th April 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is recalled and the appeal is restored to file for fresh hearing; the appeal is directed to be listed peremptorily on 7th August 2024 at Serial No.1.