Date of the Judgment: 08 December 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Can a review petition be entertained if there is no error apparent on record? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question while considering review petitions related to land compensation. The core issue revolved around whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was correct or if the High Court’s determination of market value should be sustained. The Supreme Court, in a three-judge bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat, dismissed the review petitions, finding no apparent error in the original judgment.
Case Background
The case involves a dispute over land compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard. The High Court had determined a different market value, which was challenged. The original judgment considered all submissions and circumstances and concluded that the Reference Court’s compensation was correct. The review petitions were filed seeking a re-evaluation of this decision.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Not Specified | Reference Court awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per square yard. |
| Not Specified | High Court determined a different market value. |
| Not Specified | Original judgment by the Supreme Court upheld the Reference Court’s compensation. |
| 08 December 2021 | Supreme Court dismissed review petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
The judgment under review had considered the rival submissions and all the circumstances on record and then concluded that compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard was the correct measure and that the market value determined by the High Court could not be sustained either on the basis of the sale-deeds or on the strength of judicial order.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with the application of review jurisdiction and the determination of fair compensation for land acquisition. There are no specific legal provisions or sections from any statute mentioned in the judgment. The core principle is that a review petition can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the record.
Arguments
The petitioners in the review petitions argued that the original judgment had erred in upholding the Reference Court’s compensation and not sustaining the High Court’s market value determination. However, the Supreme Court found no merit in these arguments.
The respondents argued that the original judgment was correct and that there were no errors apparent on the record to justify a review.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ Submission: Original judgment erred in upholding the Reference Court’s compensation |
|
| Respondents’ Submission: Original judgment was correct. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether there is any error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Whether there is any error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction? | The Court examined the review petitions and found no error apparent on the record to justify interference. The Court concluded that the original judgment was correct. |
Authorities
No authorities or legal provisions were explicitly mentioned in the judgment.
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that the original judgment erred in upholding the Reference Court’s compensation | Rejected. The Court found no error apparent on record to justify a review. |
| Respondents’ submission that the original judgment was correct | Accepted. The Court upheld the original judgment. |
The court did not cite any authorities in the judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The primary consideration for the Court was whether there was any error apparent on the record that would justify a review of the original judgment. The Court emphasized that the original judgment had already considered all submissions and circumstances and had correctly concluded that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was the correct measure. The Court found no reason to re-evaluate the matter.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| No error apparent on record | 100% |
| Aspect | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 0% |
| Law | 100% |
The Court’s decision was based on the principle that a review petition can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the record. Since the Court found no such error, the review petitions were dismissed. The Court stated:
“None of the ground raised in support of the Review Petitions makes out any error apparent on record to justify interference in Review Jurisdiction.”
The Court also noted:
“The judgment under review had considered the rival submissions and all the circumstances on record and then concluded that compensation awarded by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.120/- per square yard was the correct measure…”
And further,
“…that the market value determined by the High Court could not be sustained either on the basis of the sale-deeds or on the strength of judicial order.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases.
- ✓ A review can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the record.
- ✓ The Supreme Court upheld the compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition can only be entertained if there is an error apparent on the record. This case reaffirms the settled principle of review jurisdiction. There is no change in the previous position of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, upholding the original judgment that favored the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The Court found no error apparent on the record to justify a review. This decision reinforces the principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-argue settled issues.
Category
✓ Supreme Court Judgments
✓ Land Acquisition
✓ Review Petition
✓ Civil Law
✓ Supreme Court Judgments: Review Petition
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court should review its earlier judgment regarding land compensation awarded by the Reference Court.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, upholding its original judgment.
Q: What is a review petition?
A: A review petition is a request to a court to re-examine its own judgment, but it is only allowed if there is an error apparent on the record.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the review petitions?
A: The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions because it found no error apparent on the record that would justify a review.
Q: What does this mean for future cases?
A: This case reinforces the principle that review petitions cannot be used to re-argue settled issues and are only allowed if there is an error apparent on the record.