Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered a review petition arising out of a land ceiling matter. The original order dated May 2, 1995 had been passed in a special leave petition wherein the appellants (through counsel Shri Parekh) raised ground No.5 and produced a certified copy to show that the respondent was declared a surplus holder under the Land Ceiling Act and was in excess of the ceiling limit. The Court had accepted that the declaration of the respondent as surplus holder was correct and had assigned the surplus land to the appellants. However, as counsel for the review petitioner (the respondent in the SLP) reported that despite contacting the party no response was received, the Court had granted liberty to file a review petition within two months if the respondent was found to be within the ceiling limit. The review petition was thereafter filed. In the review petition, the fact of the respondent being a surplus holder was not disputed, but additional grounds were sought to be raised. The Supreme Court held that additional grounds cannot be raised in a review petition. It noted that the undisputed fact of surplus declaration was already accepted in the earlier order, and the liberty granted was limited to the specific issue of whether the respondent was within the ceiling limit. Since the review petition did not dispute the surplus declaration and only sought to raise new grounds, the Court found no reason to review its earlier order. Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed. The result was that the earlier order declaring the respondent a surplus holder and assigning surplus land to the appellants remained undisturbed. The judgment emphasizes that review jurisdiction is not an opportunity to reargue the matter on new grounds not previously considered. The Court did not cite any statutes or precedents in the order. The decision was rendered by a bench of K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria on September 12, 1995.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Scope of Review - Additional Grounds Cannot Be Raised - Not mentioned - The review petitioner (respondent in the special leave petition) did not dispute the earlier declaration of the respondent as surplus holder under the Land Ceiling Act; instead, additional grounds were sought to be raised beyond the limited liberty granted. The Supreme Court held that additional grounds cannot be entertained in a review petition, as the undisputed fact of surplus declaration had already been accepted in the order dated May 2, 1995, and therefore the review petition was dismissed. (Para 1) B) Land Ceiling - Surplus Land Determination - Declaration of Surplus Holder - Land Ceiling Act - The earlier order dated May 2, 1995 accepted a certified copy showing the respondent as surplus holder under the Land Ceiling Act and assigned the surplus land to the appellants; the review petition did not dispute this fact. Held, the declaration of the respondent as surplus holder is correct and the assignment of surplus land to the appellants is affirmed. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether additional grounds can be raised in a review petition when the earlier order granted limited liberty to review a specific fact; whether the declaration of the respondent as a surplus holder under the Land Ceiling Act was correct and undisputed
Final Decision
The review petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the fact of the respondent being a surplus holder was not disputed in the review petition and additional grounds cannot be entertained in a review petition. The declaration of the respondent as surplus holder and assignment of surplus land to the appellants stood affirmed.
Law Points
- Review petition cannot be used to raise additional grounds
- undisputed findings in earlier order not open to review
- declaration of surplus holder under Land Ceiling Act and assignment of surplus land affirmed
