SIVAKAMI & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 633 · Decided: 12-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
633
SIVAKAMI & ORS.
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
 (Civil Appeal Nos. 2749-2750 of 2018)
MARCH 12, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
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]
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 633
633
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
634
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
635
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]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
2749-2750 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Review Application No. 77 of 2012.
A. Mariarputham, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aruna Mathur, P. Malaichamy,
Avneesh Arputham (for M/s. Arputham Aruna 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.