Sivakami And Ors. vs State Of T. Nadu And Ors.

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2749-2750/2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.29397-29398 of 2013)

Sivakami & Ors. ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) These appeals are directed against the final

judgment and order dated 13.03.2013 passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Review

Application No.77 of 2012 in W.A. No.868 of 2011

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court

dismissed the review application filed by the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date: 2018.03.12 16:06:37 IST appellants herein as not maintainable and also on Reason:

merits and order dated 02.09.2008 in WA No.868 of

1 2001 whereby the Division Bench set aside the

order dated 06.01.1997 passed by the Single Judge

of the High Court which was in favour of the

appellants herein.

3) These appeals involve a short point. Few facts

need mention infra to appreciate the point involved

in the appeals.

4) The appellants herein are the writ petitioners

before the High Court in the writ proceedings out of

which these appeals arise.

5) The appellants claim to be the owners of the

land in question admeasuring around 1.52 acres in

Survey No.142/1A situated at Ganapathi Village,

Coimbatore Taluk.

6) The land in question was the subject matter of

land acquisition proceedings under the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) in the year 1985 at the instance of State of

Tamil Nadu, which had issued notifications under

Sections 4 and 6 of the Act for its acquisition. The

2 appellants, felt aggrieved of the acquisition of their

land in question, filed Writ Petition No.5220 of 1987

in the High Court at Madras and questioned therein

the legality and correctness of the entire acquisition

proceedings including the orders in G.O. Ms.

No.1119, Social Welfare Department dated

15.05.1985 and G.O.Ms. No.1536, Social Welfare

Department dated 18.06.1986.

7) The challenge to the acquisition proceedings

was on several grounds as is clear from the grounds

taken by the appellants (writ petitioners) in the writ

petition and the SLP.

8) The writ petition was contested by the State

wherein it defended the acquisition proceedings as

being legal, proper and in conformity with the

provisions of the Act.

9) The Single Judge, by order dated 06.01.1997,

allowed the appellants’ writ petition and quashed

G.O.Ms. No.1119 dated 15.05.1985 and G.O. Ms.

No. 1536 dated 18.06.1986.

3

10) The State felt aggrieved and filed intra court

appeal before the Division Bench out of which these

appeals arise. By impugned order, the Division

Bench allowed the State's appeal and while setting

aside the order of the Single Judge dismissed the

appellants’ writ petition. In other words, the

acquisition proceedings were upheld by the Division

Bench as being legal and proper. Against the said

order, review application was filed by the appellants

herein but it was dismissed. It is against these two

orders of the Division Bench, the writ petitioners felt

aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of special

leave in this Court.

11) Heard Mr. A Mariarputham, learned senior

counsel for the appellants and Mr. Thomas P.

Joseph, learned senior counsel, Mr. B. Balaji and

Mr. K.V. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the

respondents.

12) Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

4 are inclined to allow the appeals and while setting

aside the impugned orders, remand the case to the

Division Bench for deciding the writ petition filed by

the appellants afresh on merits.

13) In our considered opinion, the reasons to

remand the case to the Division Bench are more

than one, which are set out hereinbelow.

14) First, the Division Bench in Paras 4 and 5 of

its main order dated 02.09.2008 in W.A.No.868 of

2001 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, It is apposite

to reproduce paras 4 and 5 hereinbelow:

“4. From the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, it would be evident that the learned Single Judge, without discussing the relevant facts of the case pertaining to the writ petitioners (respondents 1 to 4 in this writ appeal) and without analyzing the relevant proposition of law laid down by a

5 Single Judge of this Court in the decision reported in 1994 Writ L.R. 764 (Seethalakshmi/Ramakrishnanda vs. Special Tahsildear (LA) II, Bharathiyar University, Coimbatore and another) and without considering the question as to whether the case of the writ petitioners, was similar to the one reported in 1994 Writ L.R. 764 (supra), merely allowed the writ petition based on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. In the facts and circumstances, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, can be held to be not a reasoned order, erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. We accordingly set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.”

15) Second, in the light of afore-mentioned

findings, the 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.

6

16) The Division Bench, however, simply allowed

the State's appeal and, in consequence, dismissed

the writ petition and upheld the acquisition

proceedings as being legal and proper and that too

without assigning any reason in support thereof.

17) Third, it was .0` 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.

18) In our considered opinion, this appears to be a

case where the Single Judge (writ Court) allowed the

appellants’ writ petition without assigning any

reason and without dealing with any of the grounds

raised by the parties except placing reliance on one

decision for allowing the writ petition whereas the

Division Bench allowed the State's appeal without

dealing with any of the issues raised by the parties

in the writ petition and without assigning any

7 reason as to why the writ petition deserved to be

dismissed.

19) In our view, what the Division Bench was

required to do while deciding the appeal, it was

done by the Division Bench while deciding the

review application. We find that the order in review

application runs into 10 pages whereas the order in

appeal runs into 6 pages. We cannot countenance

such approach of the Division Bench while deciding

the appeal and the review application.

20) 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

8 wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open

for examination by the Appellate Court

21) A fortiori, 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, we are also

constrained to set aside the review order.

22) In the light of foregoing discussion, we are of

the view that 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.

23) Since the matter is pending for the last three

decades, we consider it 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.

9

24) In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals

succeed and are accordingly allowed. The

impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition

is remanded to the Division Bench for its decision

afresh on merits in accordance with law.

25) We, however, make it clear that having formed

an opinion to remand the case to the Division

Bench, we did not apply our mind to the merits of

the controversy. We, therefore, request the High

Court (Division Bench) to decide the writ petition in

accordance with law preferably within six months

uninfluenced by any of our observations.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

March 12, 2018

10