https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466409 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. en-us Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Feb 2026 10:39:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466409 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466409