Gujarat High Court
The Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Suthar Nathalal Jivram Since Died ... on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 104 of 2011
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2011
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 113 of 2011
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 114 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2011
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 114 of 2011
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 115 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2011
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 115 of 2011
With
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 117 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2011
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 117 of 2011
==========================================================
THE OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD
Versus
SUTHAR NATHALAL JIVRAM SINCE DIED THROUGH LHR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Respondent(s) No. 20,24.1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No.
1,10,10.1,11,12,13,13.2,14,14.1,14.2,15,15.3,15.4,16,24,25,26,27,27.1,27.5,2
9,35,38,39,40,40.2,40.3,40.4,41,42,43.1,6,8,9
MR AAKASH CHHAYA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 46
MR JAL S. UNWALLA(1235) for the Respondent(s) No.
10.2,10.3,10.4,11.2,12,13.1,13.2,14.1,14.2.1,14.2.2,14.2.3,15.2,15.3,15.4,15.
5,16,21,24.2,24.3,26.1,3,32,33,34,36,38,39,40.2,40.3.2,40.3.3,40.3.4,40.4.2,4
1,42.5,42.6,43,5,8
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.
10.1.1,10.1.2,10.1.3,10.1.4,10.2,10.4,11.1,11.2,13.1,14.2.1,14.2.2,14.2.3,15.1
,15.2,15.5,17,18,19,2,22,23,24.4,24.5,24.6,26.1,26.2,26.3,27.2,27.3,27.4,27.5
.1,27.5.2,27.5.3,28,30,31,37,4,40.3.1,40.3.2,40.3.3,40.3.4,40.4.1,40.4.2,40.4.
3,40.4.4,42.1,42.2,42.3,42.4,42.5,42.6,44,45,7
RULE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 43.2
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by DRASHTI K. SHUKLA(HC00354) on Mon Apr 21 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 26 02:16:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 40.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 02/04/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. All these appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule 1(w) of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and
order dated 26th May 2010, passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Fast Track Court, Mehsana, in Civil
Miscellaneous (Review) Application Nos. 7 to 11 of 2009.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellant and
learned counsel Mr. Farsheed Kavina for some of the
respondents and learned assistant government pleader Mr.
Aakash Chhaya for respondent - State.
3. Submissions of appellant:
3.1 Learned counsel Mr. Ajay Mehta for the appellant would
submit that the impugned order is passed dehors the rule of
procedure as well as contrary to the law laid down by the
Honourable Supreme Court and requires to be interfered with
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
by this court.
3.2 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that there
are a number of reference cases filed in the matter by various
farmers/land-owners, but surprisingly, a common review
application is filed in the matter. He has provided a common
chart to better understand his arguments, which reads as under
:
Review Ref. Ct. HC date SC date
Sr. AO Sec 4
App. LAR No. date and and and
No. No. Sec 6
No amount amount Amount
Civil
FA 4531 Appeal No.
209 of - 62 of 5711-34 of
23.7.97
104/20 8 of 1988 & 27.05.82 1997 2000
1 50/-p. sq.
11 2009 Ors. 32 02.06.83 04.5.98
mtr.
matters 42/- p.
sq. mtr. 38 psm
27.9.2000
FA 5112
to 5116
524 of 27.11.97
113/20 10 of 05.01.84 of 1998
2 1988 & 4 40/- per
11 2009 13.09.84 Dismiss
ors. sq. mtr.
on
17.7.01
3 114/20 9 of 464 of 22.10.81 27.11.97 CA
11 2009 1988 & 27.05.82 40/- per 10882 to
Ors. 19 sq. mtr. 10900 of
matters 1998 FA
5162 -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
Review Ref. Ct. HC date SC date
Sr. AO Sec 4
App. LAR No. date and and and
No. No. Sec 6
No amount amount Amount
5180 of
Dismiss
on
08.1.02
333 of
12.3.98
115/20 11 of 1991 & 09.07.81
4 35/- per
11 2009 Ors. 8 16.06.83
sq. mtr.
matters
FA 942 -
476 of 988 of
27.11.97
117/20 7 of 1988 & 24.12.81 1999
5 40/- per
11 2009 Ors. 47 05.08.83 03.4.01
sq. mtr.
matters 38/- p
sq. mtr.
3.3 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that a
common review application is not at all maintainable and only
on this count the same was required to be rejected by the
reviewing court. He would further submit that the order passed
by the reference court is required to be set aside by this court.
3.4 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that the
order passed by the reference court in the year 1997 was
modified by this court and ultimately the Honourable Apex
Court has decided all these reference cases by fixing the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
market price.
3.5 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that, as
per the law, review before the reference Court itself is
misconceived as the decree passed by the reference court was
eventually merged in the orders passed by the Apex Court.
3.6 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that the
impugned order is passed contrary to the provisions of Section
114 read with Order 47 of CPC.
3.7 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that there
was no discussion by the reviewing court while passing the
impugned order, so far as any error; rather, a clarification has
been given in the impugned order, which is unknown to
review jurisdiction.
3.8 Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would further submit that while
passing final judgment and decree by the reference court
and/or High Court, no interest on the solatium amount has
been ordered. Under the guise of review, the reviewing court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
could not modify such judgement and decree which has been
ultimately merged in the order passed by the Apex Court.
Learned counsel Mr. Mehta would rely upon the following
decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court:
(1) Sundar vs. Union of India reported in 2001 (7) SCC
211 : AIR 2001 SC 3516
(2) Gurupreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in
(2005) 8 SCC 457
(3) ONGC Ltd. Vs. Bhliben Lal Ratanji & Anr. Passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil
Application No.5341 of 2010 an allied matters.
3.9 Thus, learned counsel Mr. Mehta requested this court to
allow the appeal.
4. Submissions of respondents:
4.1 Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Farsheed Kavina appearing
for private respondents opposed the present appeals contending
interalia that there is no error committed by the reviewing
court while entertaining the review application filed by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
original applicant and so, it has been correctly allowed.
4.2 Learned counsel Mr. Kavina would submit that when
interest on the solatium is not expressly denied either by the
High Court or by the Supreme Court, the reviewing court in
the review jurisdiction is entitled to clarify that applicants are
entitled to interest on the solatium.
4.3 Learned counsel Mr. Kavina would further submit that it is
true that a common review application is filed by all
farmers/land-owners instead of individual ones, but considering
the fact that granting of interest on solatium is based on
benevolent provisions, such hyper-technical approach may not
be accepted by this court.
4.4 Learned counsel Mr. Kavina would submit that when there
is no express denial of interest on solatium in the earlier round
of litigation, applicants are entitled to interest on solatium,
which is now the settled legal position of law.
4.5 In support of his submissions, he is relying upon a decision
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Abdul Salam
Sarkar & Ors. repoted in (2021) 17 SCC 823.
4.6 Thus, making the above submissions, he requested this
court to dismiss the present appeal.
No other and further submissions are made.
5. Analysis:
5.1 Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
At the outset, it is required to be observed that the reviewing
court, while passing the impugned order, has completely lost
sight of one fact - that the original judgment and decree
passed by the reference court first merges in the judgment and
decree passed by this court, when it partly allowed the appeal
of the present appellant in the year 1998. The judgment and
decree passed by this court also merged in the judgment and
order passed by the Honourable Apex Court in the year 2000.
5.2 Thus, eventually the original decree passed by the
reference court merges in the judgment and order passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
the Supreme Court, as leave was already granted by the
Honourable Apex Court before passing the order. Law on the
doctrine of merger is well settled need not further requires to
be discussed herein after.
5.3 Be that as it may, to make things more clear, observations
made by the Division Bench while partly allowing the Special
Civil Application No. 5341 of 2010 and allied matters need to
be considered, whereby it can be so clear that the judgment
and decree passed by the reference court was substantially
modified by this court (see page 45).
5.4 The reviewing court, without noticing the full background
of merger and the orders passed by this court and the Apex
Court, only relying upon the decree passed by the reference
court, which no longer existed, clarified such decree by passing
the impugned order. Such approach on the part of the
reviewing court is deplorable, exceeding its jurisdiction so
vested in it, highly improper and requires to be deprecated.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
5.5 So far as filing of a common review application for all
land-owners/farmers is concerned, when there are different
references filed by different landlords, there would be a
separate judgment and decree drawn by the reference court,
this court and as the case may be, Honourable Apex Court. In
such a situation, a common review application could not have
been allowed. Surprisingly, such an application filed in a
casual manner and accordingly, it were entertained by the
reviewing court. According to me, the common review
application filed in all these reference cases is required to be
rejected on such technical issue and could not have been
entertained by the reviewing court.
5.6 So far as the decision of Honourable Apex Court delivered
in the case of Sundar (supra) is concerned, its applicability is
subsequently clarified by the Honourable Apex Court in the
case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8
SCC 457, wherein in para-44 the Apex Court observed and
held as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
" 44. One other question also was sought to be raised and
answered by this Bench though not referred to it.
Considering that the question arises in various cases
pending in Courts all over the country, we permitted
counsel to address us on that question. That question is
whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), the
awardee/decree holder would be entitled to claim interest
on solatium in execution though it is not specifically
granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution
court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim
for interest on solatium had been made and the same has
been negatived either expressly or by necessary
implication by the judgment or decree of the reference
court or of the appellate court, the execution court will
have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on
solatium based on Sunder (supra) on the ground that the
execution court cannot go behind the decree. But if the
award of the reference court or that of the appellate court
does not specifically refer to the question of interest on
solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and
rejected either expressly or impliedly by the reference
court or the appellate court, and merely interest on
compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the
execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) and
say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and
in such an event interest on the amount could be directed
to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also
clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
in pending executions and not in closed executions and
the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery
from the date of the judgment in Sunder (September 19,
2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that
this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh
appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have indicated
by way of clarification also in exercise of our power
under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India
with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this
question. "
(emphasis supplied)
5.7 So, the ratio of Gurpreet Singh (supra) would clarify that in
a case where interest on solatium had been made but negated
by the judgment and decree of the appellate court, the
executing court - relying on the decision in Sundar (supra)
cannot go beyond the decree. Nonetheless, in a situation where
the decree is silent on the aspect of interest on solatium, the
executing court, in a pending execution application, may
consider granting interest on solatium, not otherwise.
5.8 Admittedly, after passing of the decree and final order
passed by Honourable Supreme Court in the present matters,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
no execution was ever filed or was pending. For reasons best
known to the applicants, a review application came to be filed.
In the case of Abdul (supra) cited by learned counsel Mr.
Kavina, it would not be applicable to the facts of the present
case, as in that case it appears that the question of
applicability of the Sundar's judgment was kept open by the
Division Bench of the Madras High Court, which is not the
case here.
5.9 It is required to be observed that when the Honourable
Supreme Court has decided other appeals filed by the appellant
in the year 2000, admittedly, no execution was either pending
or filed thereafter. The decision of Sundar (supra) came on
19th September 2001, after about one year, the impugned
review application filed by the applicant, it would not be
permissible in law, as there was no error apparent on the face
of the record, the review application ought not to have been
filed before the reviewing court, and in any case, it ought not
to have been allowed by reviewing court for the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
reasons.
5.10 The scope of review is well defined by numerous
decisions of Honourable Supreme Court but it is apt to refer
and rely upon following decisions which may be appropriately
applied to the facts germen from the matter.
(1) In a case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union Of India reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 224 it is held as under:
"52. The dictionary meaning of the word "review" is "the
act of looking, offer something again with a view to
correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the
review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel
Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR
1970 SC 1273 held that the power of review is not an
inherent power. It must be conferred by law either
specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also
not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice
is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or
procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way
of administration of justice. Law has to bend before
justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the
review petition was under a mistake and the earlier
judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous
assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration
shall result in miscarriage of justice nothing would
preclude the Court from rectifying the error. This Court in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595
held :
"Review literally and even judicially means re-
examination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy
inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human
fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even
the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of
decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both
statutorily and judicially have been carved out to
correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice.
Even when there was no statutory provision and no
rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the
circumstances in which it could rectify its order the
Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process
or miscarriage of justice. In Prithwi Chand Lal
Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai, AIR 1941 FC 1 the Court
observed that even though no rules had been framed
permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it
was available on the limited and narrow ground
developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords.
The Court approved the principle laid down by the
Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind
Singh (1836) 1 Moo PC 117 that an order made by the
Court has final and could not be altered.
". . . . . . . .nevertheless, if by misprison in embodying
the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these
Courts possess, by Common Law, the same power
which the Courts of record and statute have of
rectifying the mistakes which have crept in. . . . . The
House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying
mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and
this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
have however gone a step further, and have corrected
mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details
of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order
to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added
explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies.'
Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same
decision as under :
It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended
in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire
prevaling to prevent irremediable injustice being done
by a Court of last resort, where by some accident,
without any blame, the party has not been heard and
an order has been inadvertently made as if the party
had been heard.'
Rectification of an order thus stems from the
fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is
exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing
finality. When the Constitution was framed the
substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed
by this Court was specifically provided by Art. 137 of
the Constitution. Our Constitution makers who had the
practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such
provision expressly conferrred the substantive power to
review any judgment or order by Art. 137 of the
Constitution. And Cl. (c) of Art. 145 permitted this
Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to
which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In
exercise of this power Order 40 had been framed
empowering this Court to review an order in civil
proceedings on grounds analogous to Order 47 Rule 1
of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, 'for any
other sufficient reason' in the clause has been given an
expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been
held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power.
Apart from Order 40, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court
Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such
orders as may be necessary in the interest in justice or
to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The Court is
thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own
order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for
sake of justice."
The mere fact that two views on the same subject are
possible is no ground to review the earlier judgment passed
by a Bench of the same strength.
56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute
a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of
the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review
cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere
possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for
review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further
petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of
following the practice of the binding nature of the larger
Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of
coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be
followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of
its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the
Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier
judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental
rights of a citizen or rights created under any other
statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the
earlier judgment."
(emphasis supplied)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
(2) So also in a case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax
Officer and Anr. Reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362 , it has been so
held by Honourable Supreme Court that subsequent decisions
of Apex Court declaring and or clarifying law would not ipso
facto become ground to review the decision which is already
decided by Court and accepted by parties to lis unless its
pending before higher court. It has been held thus:
"15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the
Constitution Berich in Beghar Foundation v. K.5.
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J., held that even the
change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of
coordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be
regarded as a ground for review.
16. The gist of the aforestated decisions is that:
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character
make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to
be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the
court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected".
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which
have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an
error which, mere looking at the record should strike and
it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning
on the points where there may conceivably be two
opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
(emphasis supplied)
Thus, view it from any stand point of view, order impugned in
the appeal is not only erroneous one, perverse but bad in law
having passed by trial Court exceeding its jurisdiction so vested
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
in it.
5.11 Furthermore, I am also of the view that the review
application could not have been presented by all claimants in a
composite manner when there were separate references and
separate judgments passed by the courts. The clarification
which has been given in the impugned order is also not
required, because as per the doctrine of merger, the decree
passed by the trial court is merged with the decree of this
court and ultimately with the Apex Court.
6. Conclusion:
6.1 Thus, in view of the aforesaid observations, discussions and
reasons, the impugned order dated 26th May 2010 challenged
by way of the present appeal requires to be interfered with by
this court while exercising powers under Order 43 Rule 1(w)
of the CPC, as it is not only passed exceeded to its jurisdiction
but has not appropriately exercised the jurisdiction so vested in
it and as such the impugned order is passed beyond the ambit,
scope and preview of Order 47 of the CPC thereby it is held
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/AO/104/2011 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
be erroneous and perverse.
6.2 All these factors lead to only one conclusion - that the
impugned order dated 26.05.2010 passed in Civil Misc.
(Review) Application No. 7 to 11 of 2009 by the learned
Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, 1st Fast Track
Court, Mahesana, is bad in law, passed by exceeding its
jurisdiction thereby, requires to be quashed and set aside and
accordingly the same is hereby quashed and set aside. All
appeals are allowed accordingly.
6.3 In view of disposal of main appeals, civil applications are
also disposed of accordingly.
(MAULIK J.SHELAT,J)
DRASHTI K. SHUKLA
