Judgment/Order:
Non-reasoned order – Sustenance of – Writ petition before High Court, challenging land acquisition proceeding, allowed by Single Judge of High Court – Division Bench of High Court in writ appeal set aside the order of Single Judge on the ground that the order was non-reasoned – Review petition dismissed – On appeal, held: Division Bench rightly set side the order of Single Judge holding it to be non-reasoned, but Division Bench also failed to give its own reasoning on all the issues while deciding the appeal – It was necessary for the Division Bench to deal with all the grounds raised by the parties while reversing the order of writ court and to record their own findings by assigning reasons – Matter remitted to Division Bench of High Court – Land Acquisition. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Or. XLVII r. 1 – Review jurisdiction – Scope of – Distinction from appellate jurisdiction – Held: Power of review is very limited – It cannot be decided like a regular intra-court appeal, scope whereof is much wider, wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for examination by the appellate court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Division Bench of High Court in writ appeal having rightly observed that the Single Judge neither discussed any issue nor gave his reasoning and nor even dealt with any of the grounds raised by the parties in support of their case and yet allowed the writ petition and quashed the acquisition proceedings, erred in not dealing with any of the issues arising in the case. [Para 14] [637-A]
2. Division Bench should have either dealt with all the issues raised by the parties and given its own reasoning on all such issues while deciding the appeal or remanded the case to the writ Court (Single Judge) for deciding the appellants’ writ petition afresh on merits and to pass a reasoned order dealing with all the grounds raised by the parties in support of their respective contentions. [Para 15] [637-F-G]
3. It was necessary for the Division Bench to deal with all the grounds raised by the parties while reversing the order of writ Court and to record their own findings by assigning reasons in support of the conclusion. It was, however, not done. [Para 17] [638-A]
4. What the Division Bench was required to do while deciding the appeal, it was done by the Division Bench while deciding the review application. The order in review application runs into 10 pages whereas the order in appeal runs into 6 pages. Such approach of the Division Bench cannot be countenanced while deciding the appeal and the review application. The scope of the appellate powers and the review powers are well defined. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power. The review petition/application cannot be decided like a regular intra court appeal. On the other hand, the scope of appeal is much wider wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for examination by the Appellate Court. What was not decided in appeal by the Division Bench, could not be decided by the Division Bench while deciding the review application. It is for this reason, review order is also set aside. [Paras 19, 20 and 21] [638-D-E, G]
5. Thus, the orders passed by the High Court, i.e. (writ Court and Division Bench) are bad in law and cannot be legally sustained for want of any reason, discussion and finding on any of the grounds/issues raised by the parties in support of their respective contentions. Since the matter is pending for the last three decades, it is just and proper to remand the case (writ petition) to the Division Bench for its decision afresh on merits, in accordance with law instead of remanding it to the Writ Court. [Paras 22 and 23] [638-H; 639-A]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.