Case Analysis Ms Evinix Designs Concepts P Ltd & Ors vs Lt Governor NCT of Delhi & Anr 2026 DHC 1425-DB
Synopsis
This judgment, delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, deals with a batch of review petitions filed against a common judgment dated 24.12.2024, which had dismissed several writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings. The review petitioners contended that the original judgment had misread their pleadings, overlooked crucial arguments regarding the lack of statutory notices, and erroneously treated one case as the lead matter. The High Court, after a detailed examination of the original judgment and the record, dismissed the review petitions. It held that the contentions were misconceived, as the original judgment had correctly noted the petitioners' own pleadings (including a categorical statement that they were not challenging the acquisition) and had dealt with all material aspects. The court reaffirmed the narrow scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing that a review cannot be used as a disguised appeal.
1. Heading for the Judgment
In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
REVIEW PET. 73/2025 IN W.P.(C) 8214/2013
REVIEW PET. 74/2025 IN W.P.(C) 8215/2013
REVIEW PET. 71/2025 IN W.P.(C) 8216/2013
REVIEW PET. 75/2025 IN W.P.(C) 8217/2013
REVIEW PET. 72/2025 IN W.P.(C) 8218/2013
REVIEW PET. 70/2025 IN W.P.(C) 119/2014
M/s Amar Dyeing Works & Ors. ....Review Petitioners
versus
Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi & Anr. ....Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta
Date of Decision: 18th FEBRUARY, 2026
2. Legal Framework
This judgment operates within the following procedural and legal framework:
The Constitution of India:
Article 226: The original jurisdiction under which the writ petitions were filed, challenging administrative actions related to land acquisition.The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
Order XLVII Rule 1: The provision governing review petitions. It allows a court to review its own judgment if there is:
An error apparent on the face of the record.
A discovery of new and important evidence which, after due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant.
Any other sufficient reason.
The settled legal position, as reiterated in the judgment, is that a review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-argue the case or seek a fresh hearing on merits.The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (The Old Act): The statute under which the original land acquisition was initiated.
Section 9: Requires the Collector to give public notice and serve individual notices on interested parties to appear and state their claims for compensation.
Section 10: Empowers the Collector to summon witnesses and require production of documents.
Section 11: Pertains to the making of an award by the Collector.
Section 11A: Stipulates a time limit within which the award must be made, failing which the entire acquisition proceedings can lapse.Principles of Review Jurisdiction: The court heavily relied on the well-defined parameters of review jurisdiction, which are narrower than appellate jurisdiction.
Related Precedents Cited and Relied Upon:
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1408: A Supreme Court judgment cited in the original order. The review petitioners argued its reliance was "misconceived," but the court held it was "germane" in the context of the case.
May George v. Special Tehsildar, (2010) 13 SCC 98: A Supreme Court judgment relied upon in the original decision to hold that an award cannot be set aside solely on the ground of infirmity in notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362: A recent Supreme Court judgment quoted extensively by the High Court to lay down the precise contours of review jurisdiction. Key principles extracted include:
Review is permissible for an error apparent on the face of the record, not for an error to be detected by a long process of reasoning.
A review petition cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
The petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and rearrange questions already addressed and decided.
3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case
Original Writ Petitions: A batch of writ petitions was filed challenging land acquisition proceedings. The lead matter, according to the review petitioners, was M/s Amar Dyeing Works v. Lt. Governor, NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) 8218/2013).
Key Factual Background: The petitioners had entered into an agreement with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and had voluntarily handed over possession of the land to DMRC in consideration for allotment of commercial space.
Original Judgment (24.12.2024): The Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions. It noted:
A categorical statement in the petitioners' amended pleadings (specifically in the rejoinder) that they were "neither challenging the vires of any notification under the repealed act, nor assailing the acquisition proceedings."
That the petitioners had voluntarily handed over possession.
That even if there were procedural infractions regarding notices under Sections 9 and 10, or delays in making the award, these were not fatal in light of the petitioners' conduct and the legal position in May George.Review Petitions: Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present review petitions, arguing that the original judgment:
Misread their pleadings and wrongly attributed to them a statement giving up the right to challenge the acquisition.
Failed to deal with the contention that the award was antedated.
Overlooked the argument regarding non-compliance with Sections 9 and 10.
Erroneously treated M/s Evinix Designs as the lead matter instead of M/s Amar Dyeing Works.
4. Issues in the Judgment
The court addressed the following primary issues:
Error Apparent on Face of Record: Whether the review petitioners had made out a case of an "error apparent on the face of the record" in the original judgment, specifically regarding the alleged misstatement of their pleadings.
Non-Consideration of Arguments: Whether the original judgment failed to consider crucial arguments raised by the petitioners, such as those relating to the antedating of the award and non-compliance with Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Factual Mistake: Whether there was a factual error in the original judgment regarding the nature of the petitioners' rights in the property or the lead matter.
Scope of Review: Whether the review petitions were, in essence, an attempt to re-argue the case on merits, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.
5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)
The court's reasoning was firmly anchored in the limited scope of review jurisdiction and a meticulous verification of the record against the review petitioners' claims.
The "Categorical Statement" was on Record: The court directly refuted the petitioners' primary contention. It pointed to paragraph 27 of the original judgment, which quoted the petitioners' own rejoinder: "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." This statement was "bodily lifted" from the record. Therefore, the allegation that the court had misread the pleadings was itself "wholly incorrect" and "clearly misconceived."
All Arguments were Considered: The court demonstrated that the original judgment had, in fact, dealt with all the contentions raised in the review petitions:
Infraction of Sections 9 & 10: Addressed in paragraphs 31 to 37, with reliance on May George.
Ante-dating of Award: Addressed in paragraphs 39 to 41, 44 & 45.
The judgment provided "multiple reasons" for dismissing the writ petitions, independent of the Delhi Airtech case.Error in Lead Matter is Immaterial: The court held that the contention regarding which case was treated as the lead matter was "misconceived," as the factual conspectus and legal issues in all petitions were "substantially similar." The nature of the rights asserted by the petitioner was correctly noted from the pleadings in the relevant file.
Review Cannot Re-argue the Case: The court applied the principles from Sanjay Kumar Agarwal. It held that the review petitions were seeking to re-agitate and re-arrange questions that had already been addressed and decided. This is precisely what a review petition cannot do. An error that requires a process of reasoning to detect is not an "error apparent on the face of the record."
6. New Legal Framework Established
This judgment does not establish a new legal principle. Its primary value lies in its role as a textbook illustration of the correct application of review jurisdiction. It serves as a strong reminder to litigants and the bar that:
Review is Not a Second Innings: A review petition cannot be used to re-argue a case on merits or to point out errors that are not self-evident.
Pleadings are Binding: Parties cannot later claim that the court misread their pleadings if the court's reading is a faithful reproduction of what is on record. A party is bound by the statements made in its own affidavits and rejoinders.
Mere Disagreement is Not Grounds for Review: Disagreeing with the conclusions of a judgment, or believing that certain arguments should have been given more weight, is not a valid ground for review. The petitioner must show an error that is apparent without elaborate argument.
7. Examination and Analysis by the Court
The court's analysis was precise and demonstrated a deep respect for procedural finality.
Record-Checking: The court did not rely on memory or assertion. It went back to the specific paragraphs of the original judgment (para 27) and the specific pleadings in the case file (the rejoinder) to verify the correctness of its previous observations. This empirical approach effectively demolished the petitioners' main argument.
Cross-Referencing: It systematically cross-referenced each ground raised in the review petitions with the corresponding paragraphs in the original judgment that had already dealt with those issues. This showed that the claim of "non-consideration" was factually incorrect.
Application of Legal Standard: After establishing that there was no factual error, the court applied the legal standard for review from Sanjay Kumar Agarwal. It concluded that the petitioners were essentially asking for a re-hearing, which falls outside the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1.
Dismissal of Ancillary Arguments: The court dismissed arguments about the lead matter and the description of property rights as either immaterial or correctly recorded, further reinforcing that no ground for review existed.
8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
This judgment is a robust defense of the principle of finality in judicial proceedings.
Strengths: The judgment's primary strength is its procedural correctness. It correctly identifies and applies the narrow scope of review jurisdiction. By meticulously comparing the review petitioners' claims with the actual record, it demonstrates that the review was based on a fundamental misreading of the original judgment. This serves as an important check against frivolous review petitions that seek to prolong litigation unnecessarily.
Legality: The decision is legally unimpeachable. It adheres strictly to the statutory framework of Order XLVII CPC and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court.
Practical Impact: The judgment sends a clear message that parties cannot use review petitions as a tool to re-litigate lost cases. It reinforces the discipline required in pleadings: a party cannot later claim that a court misread a pleading if the court's reading is accurate. This promotes efficiency and discourages parties from making contradictory claims at different stages of litigation.
Final Outcome:
The review petitions were dismissed. The court held that no merit was found in them. All pending applications were also disposed of.