1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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)

J U D G M E N T

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

appellants herein as not maintainable and also on

merits and order dated 02.09.2008 in WA No.868 of

2

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

3

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.

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

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

8

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

9

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.  

10

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