Delhi High Court Dismisses Review Petitions on Land Acquisition Claims, Condones Short Delay in Filing

A Division Bench of Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sachin Datta heard applications for condonation of delay and a batch of review petitions seeking review of the Court's judgment dated 24.12.2024 in writ petitions arising from land acquisition and possession disputes involving the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and the Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi. The petitions challenged aspects of acquisition proceedings, alleged non-compliance with Sections 9 and 10 and the timing of the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court allowed applications condoning a delay of 16 days in filing the review petitions but ultimately dismissed the review petitions as barred by the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. The Bench recorded that the earlier judgment had taken full note of key factual material, including agreements under which petitioners voluntarily handed possession to DMRC in consideration of commercial space allotment, and detailed treatment of contentions on notices under Sections 9 and 10 and alleged ante-dating of the award. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 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."

Background The review petitions (Review Pet. Nos. 70–75/2025 in writ petitions W.P.(C) 8214/2013 and connected matters) challenged the High Court's December 24, 2024 judgment which had rejected writ petitions by several landowners and developers who complained of acquisition and alleged illegal taking of possession. The petitioners argued that the earlier judgment failed to appreciate that the writ petitions never abandoned the right to challenge acquisition proceedings, that the Award under Section 11 had been ante-dated, and that statutory notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were not served as required.

The Court reviewed the record and noted that the writ record itself contained explicit averments in the amended petitions and rejoinders indicating that petitioners did not seek to challenge the vires of acquisition notifications. The Bench recorded the petitioners' own averment: "It is relevant to submit here that the petitioner in the present case is neither challenging the vires of any notification under the Repealed Act nor assailing the acquisition proceedings." The Court observed that the earlier judgment had considered authorities including May George v. Special Tehsildar and the Supreme Court's decision in Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd., and had dealt with the issues of notice infirmities and alleged ante-dating of the Award in specific paragraphs. Applying settled principles on review jurisdiction, the Court held that the review petitions sought to re-agitate and re-argue issues already decided and thus fell outside the limited remedial scope of review. The Court allowed the condonation applications, dismissed the review petitions for lack of merit, and disposed of other pending applications.

Case Details: Case No.: W.P.(C) 8214/2013 & connected matters (Review Pet. Nos. 70–75/2025) Case Title: M/s Evinix Designs Concepts P. Ltd. v. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi & Ors. (and connected matters) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Pooja Mehra Saigal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Karan Gupta, Mr. Nimish Sharma and Ms. Ananya Chaudhary; Mr. S.K. Rout, Mr. Aman Mehrotra, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Ms. Parmina Nath, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Senior Counsel with Mrs. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr. D. Kapil, Advocates.