Scope of review when an aggrieved party appeals an order of remand

When a party successful before a single judge is subsequently aggrieved by a division bench order remanding the matter back for fresh consideration, that party maintains an independent right to challenge the remand before the Supreme Court, regardless of previous dismissals filed by opposing state parties. The dismissal of a state's special leave petition challenging a remand order—primarily because the state itself sought or benefited from the remand—does not preclude the private landowner from independently assailing the legality of that very same remand. The apex court must evaluate the correctness of the remand order from the specific perspective and prejudice suffered by the private litigant whose favorable decree was improperly overturned. If the order of remand contradicts a prior, finalized appellate judgment that affirmed the single judge's relief, the remand cannot be sustained merely because a previous state petition against it was dismissed. A landowner who has endured decades of delay cannot be subjected to a fresh round of trial litigation when the legal issues have already been definitively settled in parallel appellate proceedings. Judicial efficiency requires the apex court to protect the private litigant from redundant re-litigation caused by improper procedural remands issued at the instance of state authorities. Therefore, appeals by private parties against conflicting remand orders will be allowed to restore the original, validly affirmed substantive directions. (Syed Mohammed Shabbuddin v. The Union of India & Others ETC. | 2026 INSC 231)