Review is unwarranted absent an error apparent on the face of the judgment.

The petitioner sought review of the High Court’s judgment dated 16 December 2025 in the Authority’s writ appeal.

He contended that the Court had relied on an incorrect translation of the State Government’s communication dated 6 March 2023 concerning land-acquisition proceedings, and that the correct translation had been filed by him in a memo dated 2 June 2025.

The Court directed the State to provide an authenticated translation and an affidavit from the Secretary to the Government, Urban Development Department.

The Secretary’s affidavit stated that the file notings had concluded that the housing scheme should not be dropped and that the Authority should take steps to implement the acquisition proceedings.

The Court also noted that the earlier challenge to the acquisition had failed up to the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the translation relied upon in the writ appeal judgment was incorrect and the petitioner’s translation disclosed a basis for review.

2. Whether the impugned judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

The petition was brought under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides for review on legally recognised grounds, including an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s observations in paragraph 38 of its judgment in Civil Appeal No. 3600 of 2011: land acquired for layout formation should not ordinarily be denotified or released, and private interests are subordinated to public good.

The judgment does not identify the name or citation of that Supreme Court decision.

The Court examined the State’s authenticated translation and the Secretary’s affidavit concerning the underlying file notings.

It concluded that the communication conveyed that dropping the acquisition was inappropriate and that further steps should be taken to complete the scheme through the acquisition process.

In light of that clarification, and the prior unsuccessful challenge to the acquisition, the Court found no apparent error in its earlier judgment that would justify review.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of as no longer surviving.