Delhi High Court
Hakikat Rai vs D.D.A on 6 April, 2026
$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 952/2015
HAKIKAT RAI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Tasneem Ahmadi and Ms. Afnan,
Advs.
versus
D.D.A. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Vinayak Uniyal, Mr. Gaganmeet
Singh Sachdeva and Ms. Saiba M.
Rajpal, Advs. for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
CM APPL. 56284/2025 (by respondent under Section 151 CPC seeking
recall of judgment dated 07.10.2016)
1. The present application has been filed by the respondent/DDA
(hereinafter referred to as ‘DDA’) seeking recall of the judgment dated
07.10.2016 to the extent the same records that the ownership of the
petitioner namely, Late Hakikat Rai qua 15 biswas each in two khasra nos.
215 (min.) and 216 (min.) of Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi is not in
dispute.
2. The facts on which the relief has been predicated are that the
captioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:
“(a) Grant a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents, their servants, agents andSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 1 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
assigns not to demolish the boundary walls of the Petitioner on
Khasra Nos. 215 min & 216 min of Village Hauz Rani New Delhi.
(b) Issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the Respondents not to dispossess the
Petitioner from Khasra Nos 215 min & 216 min of Village Hauz
Rani New Delhi,”
3. In the writ petition, it was alleged that Late Hakikat Rai was allotted
09 acres of land in various khasra numbers including khasra nos. 215 min.
(0-15) and 216 min. (0-15) situated in Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi.
4. As evident from the above quoted prayer clause, the dispute in the
writ petition was confined only to the land measuring 30 biswas i.e. 15
biswas each in khasra nos. 215 min. and 216 min. situated in Village Hauz
Rani, New Delhi.
5. The petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court
wherein, on the basis of documents on record, it was recorded that the
petitioner is the owner of 15 biswas each in khasra nos. 215 min. and 216
min. The Court further observed that since the exact location and extent of
215 min. and 216 min. is not known, therefore, the Court cannot arrive at a
definite conclusion as to where the said land is situated. Accordingly, the
Court closed the proceedings of the writ petition granting liberty to the
petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for
determining the exact location of the petitioner’s said land. The relevant
extract from the said decision reads thus:
“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has
been in possession of 15 biswas each in 215 Min. and 216 Min. of
Village Hauz Rani, New Delhi since 1953.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent-DDA relies on the
notification dated 22nd February, 1979 whereby 02 Bigha and 06Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 2 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
Biswa in 215 Min. as well as 02 Bigha and 03 Biswa in 216 Min.,
has been transferred to the DDA. The said notification is at pages
245-257 of the paper book.
4. This Court with the assistance of the parties has perused the
paper book at length and finds that even according to the DDA, the
petitioner has been in uninterrupted possession of the aforesaid
land as an allottee since 1964-65. Even the documents furnished by
the petitioner, namely, the letter issued by the Assistant Custodian
(Rural) at page 22 of the paper book as well as the report of the
Local Officer at page 24 of the paper book and the revenue record
at pages 26-27 of the paper book have been authenticated by the
Land and Building Department. Consequently, the ownership of the
petitioner of 15 biswas each in 215 Min. and 216 Min. is not
disputed.
5. However, this Court is not aware as to exact location and extent
of 215 Min. and 216 Min. In the present proceedings, this Court
cannot arrive at a definite conclusion as to where the 15 Biswa of
land of the petitioner in 215 Min. and 216 Min. is situated.
6. Consequently, after recording that the petitioner is the owner of
15 Biswa each in 215 Min. and 216 Min., the present proceedings
are closed and the petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate
proceedings in accordance with law for determining the exact
location of the petitioner’s land.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said alternative
proceedings shall be filed within a period of six weeks.
8. Till the said alternative proceedings are concluded, both parties
are directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession and
construction in respect of 215 Min. and 216 Min. of Village Hauz
Rani, New Delhi.
9. If the respondent intends to take any action against the
unauthorized construction carried out by the petitioner, it shall be
at liberty to do so in accordance with law. Rights and contentions
even on this aspect are left open.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition and
pending application stand disposed of.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 3 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
6. Mr. Ashim Vachher, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/DDA
has articulated the following grounds to seek recall and setting aside of the
judgment dated 07.10.2016:
(i) The judgment dated 07.10.2016 declared the title of the
petitioner over the land in question, which could not have been
done in the writ jurisdiction. The Writ Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is not an appropriate forum for adjudication of
property rights and disputes relating to the title. The reliance was
placed on the decision in Rajesh Sharma vs. Government Boys Sr.
Secondary School No.2, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 224.
(ii) Some of the documents on which the judgment dated
07.10.2016 and the findings recorded therein are premised are in the
nature of office noting which cannot be relied upon to claim any
right over the property. In support of this contention, reliance has
been placed on the following two decisions – (a) Sethi Auto Service
Station vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2009) 1 SCC 180; and
(b) Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs.
Vishnudev Cooperative Housing Society, (2018) 8 SCC 215.
(iii) The allegations of the petitioner that he was allotted land by
virtue of some letters issued by the custodian of evacuee property
cannot be the sole basis to declare the petitioner as the owner of the
land in question, unless a title document viz. sale deed is executed.
To buttress this contention, reliance was placed on the decision in
Amar Singh vs. Custodian Evacuee Property Punjab, (1957) SCC
OnLine SC 75.
(iv) Merely because the name of the petitioner had been entered
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 4 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
into a Jamabandi / Revenue Records does not confer any title on
him, in as much as, the title can only be conveyed through an
appropriate registered sale deed. In support of this submission,
reliance was placed on Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner,
(2007) 6 SCC 186 and in Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Jammu &
Kashmir, (2008) 9 SCC 368.
7. It was also argued by Mr. Vachher that though there is delay in
seeking recall of the judgment dated 07.10.2016, still a review can be sought
of an order, if new facts or documents have been discovered, therefore, the
review is not liable to be dismissed, even if filed belatedly. Elaborating on
this submission, Mr. Vachher contends that vide Acquisition Offer Nos.
1027 and 1027-A dated 30.06.1960 and 09.11.1962, respectively, land
measuring 376 bighas and 12 biswas, situated in Village Hauz Rani, was
acquired by the Government under the Re-settlement of Displaced Persons
(Land Acquisition) Act, 1948, and khasra Nos. 215 and 216, Village Hauz
Rani, New Delhi were also part of the said 376 bighas and 12 biswas. He
submits that the said documents were not on record of this Court, when the
judgment dated 07.10.2016 was passed.
8. He further submits that it was not brought to the notice of this Court
on 07.10.2016 that by a notification dated 22.02.1979, which was
subsequently published on 08.03.1979, the land measuring 30.65 acres was
transferred and placed at the disposal of DDA by Ministry of Rehabilitation.
Again khasra nos. 215 and 216 were included in the said 30.65 acres of land
transferred in favour of the DDA from the Ministry of Rehabilitation under
the package deal.
9. Mr. Vachher submits that when the judgment dated 07.10.2016 was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 5 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
passed, the above significant facts were not brought to the notice of the
Court, and had the same been done, the said judgment would not have been
passed by this Court.
10. He submits that subsequent to the said judgment another petition has
been filed by Sh. Suresh Kumar Gulabani, son of Late Hakikat Rai,
subsequent to the demise of his father, being W.P. (C) 842/2017 before this
Court, which is still pending.
11. He submits that during the pendency of the said petition, officials of
the DDA while reviewing various files pertaining to the property in question
came across certain documents being khasra girdwari wherein khasra nos.
215 min and 216 min are shown to be owned by Government of India.
Hence, the land in question is a government land over which Late Hakikat
Rai had tried to encroach upon, and even his son Sh. Suresh Kumar
Gulabani has filed a false and frivolous petition being W.P. (C) 842/2017.
12. Along with the application, DDA also sought to place on record all
the above referred documents alleging that the learned counsel for the DDA
who made the statement before the Court on 07.10.2016 was not aware of
the documents which are now sought to be filed.
13. It is thus, urged by Mr. Vachher that the judgment dated 07.10.2016
be recalled to the extent the same records that there is no dispute on behalf
of the applicant/DDA qua the ownership of Late Hakikat Rai over the land
in question.
14. Having heard Mr. Ashim Vachher, learned Senior Counsel for the
applicant/DDA, this Court finds that by way of present application prayer
has been made to recall and set aside the judgment dated 07.10.2016, but
law is well settled that a court may recall an order earlier made by it if – (i)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 6 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of
jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent, (ii) there exists fraud or
collusion in obtaining the judgment, (iii) there has been a mistake of the
court prejudicing a party, or (iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of
the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the
estate was not represented.1 None of these circumstances exist in the present
case, rather perusal of the application and grounds pleaded therein makes it
plain that the applicant/DDA is essentially seeking review of the judgment
dated 07.10.2016.
15. It is noteworthy that the said judgment was passed on 07.10.2016 but
the application seeking review thereof has been filed on or about
01.09.2025, approximately 08 years after the said judgment was rendered,
whereas ordinarily a review is to be filed within a period of 30 days. The
inordinate delay of about 08 years has not been explained, and the only
justification put forth is that officials of the DDA came across certain
relevant documents only during the pendency of the writ petition being W.P
(C) 842/2017. No details have been furnished as to which officials, and
when did they come across the relevant documents, nor the inordinate delay
in filing the review has been explained. Therefore, the review is liable to
dismissed on this ground alone.
16. Nonetheless, the Court proceeds to discuss the contentions raised by
Mr. Vachher on merits, which must be put to test by examining the legal
position that governs the power of review.
17. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power
which enables the superior court to correct errors committed by a
1
Budhia Swain & Ors. v. Gopinath Deb & Ors., (1999) 4 SCC 396
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 7 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
subordinate court. A judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is
mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to
exercise its power of review.2
18. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down the guiding principles for exercising the review
jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of
the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR
1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526
: (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at
least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles
have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron
Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
2
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 8 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for
patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be
an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at
the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. It is trite law that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution has the inherent power of review, but
the same are circumscribed by definitive limits, as succinctly summarised by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam
Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, in the following terms:
“3. ……It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] there is nothing in Article
226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising
the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave
and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive
limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review
may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be
exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 9 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was
erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of
appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate
powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner
of errors committed by the subordinate court.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. In State of W.B v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court emphasised that where review is sought on the ground of
discovery of new matter or evidence, the party seeking review has also to
show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge
and even after the exercise of due diligence, therefore, the same could not be
produced before the Court earlier. The relevant observations from the said
decision reads thus:
“21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is
sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such
matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a
character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered
the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important
matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito
justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show
that such additional matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same
could not be produced before the court earlier.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. In one of the recent decisions, S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.
Narayana Reddy and Ors, (2022) 17 SCC 255, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
after examining the case law on the subject again summed up various
principles governing the exercise of power of review in the following terms:
“33. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been
consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements
that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an
appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake orSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 10 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has
to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as
an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to
exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In the
guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a
mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because
there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment
may also be open to review when any new or important matter of
evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the
condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the
party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the
order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence.
There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as
against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous
decision can be corrected by the superior court, however an error
apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by
exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred
to in Order 47 Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described
as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been
explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least
analogous to those specified in the rule” (refer : Chhajju
Ram v. Neki [Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 : AIR
1922 PC 112] and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar
Poulose Athanasius [Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 : AIR
1954 SC 526] ).”
22. Now, coming back to the submissions of Mr. Vachher and examining
the same in light of the legal position exposited in the above noted decisions,
this Court finds that the grounds articulated by Mr. Vachher which have
been crystallised in paragraph 6 above, are the grounds on merits of the case
and the same were available to the respondent/DDA, even at the time of
passing the judgment dated 07.10.2016, the review of which has been
sought. It is not permissible to re-hear the original matter all over again and
correct the decision, even if it is erroneous. Such power vests with a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 11 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
superior Court and enables it to correct all errors committed by a
subordinate Court. To put it differently, an order or decision or judgment
cannot be reheard and corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on
the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court on a
point of fact or law; this exercise is within the domain of an Appellate Court.
23. The power of review can be exercised when there is an error apparent
on the face of record, and not an error which has to be fished out and
searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. If an error is not self-evident
and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it
cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record. Having
examined the submissions of Mr. Vachher enumerated in paragraph 6 above,
this Court is of the view that no error, much less an error apparent on the
face of records has been brought out by the DDA.
24. As regard the submission of Mr. Vachher that the documents now
sought to be placed on record along with an application were not within the
knowledge of the counsel of the DDA, who made statement on 07.10.2016
and the officials of the DDA came across certain relevant documents only
during the pendency of the writ petition being W.P (C) 842/2017, suffice it
to note that the judgment of which review has been sought was passed as
early as on 07.10.2016. Further, the W.P.(C) 842/2017 has also been
pending since the year 2017. The DDA can hardly be heard to state that the
said documents were not known to them since the same were admittedly,
available in their records for being produced before this Court prior to the
passing of the judgment dated 07.10.2016.
25. It is not a case of the DDA that the said records were not in its
custody or knowledge, and even after exercise of due diligence, the same
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 12 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37
could not be produced before the Court earlier. On the contrary, bereft of
details, the DDA has vaguely pleaded in the application that the officials of
the DDA came across certain relevant documents only during the pendency
of the writ petition being W.P.(C) 842/2017, which is pending since the year
2017. This, in the considered opinion of the Court, does not satisfy the test
for exercising the power of review.
26. Therefore, no ground is made out warranting exercising power of
review jurisdiction. The application is accordingly, dismissed.
VIKAS MAHAJAN, J
APRIL 06, 2026/dss
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
W.P.(C) 952/2015 Page 13 of 13
By:DEEPAK SINGH
Signing Date:06.04.2026
07:30:37