Unauthorized occupants of acquired land lack legal standing to challenge road widening for public development projects.

The petitioners are residents/occupants of land in Khasra No. 12(min) and 13(min) of Village Haiderpur, Delhi. The authorities planned to expand Road No. 320 to a 30-meter width, which necessitated the removal of structures occupied by the petitioners

On April 6, 2026, the High Court issued a judgment directing the expansion of the road and providing a timeline for eviction

The petitioners in W.P.(C) 1784/2026 filed a review petition (Review Pet. 227/2026) claiming a new regularization notification for the village and disputing the road's intended width

Simultaneously, two individuals who were part of the original representative suit filed a fresh writ petition [W.P.(C) 6338/2026] challenging the eviction and an ex-gratia compensation notice dated May 4, 2026

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment dated April 6, 2026, in light of a subsequent regularization notification

2. Whether a fresh writ petition can be maintained by individual occupants for the same cause of action after their representative petition was dismissed

3. Whether the executive's notice for ex-gratia compensation and eviction timeline violated the court's prior directions

The court primarily applied Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which permits review only when there is an "error apparent on the face of the record"

It also applied principles governing representative litigation, holding that when a petition is filed on behalf of a group (via Power of Attorney), individual members of that group cannot maintain separate writ petitions for the same relief

the expansion of public infrastructure on acquired land is a matter of administrative policy, and occupants without registered title deeds have no vested legal right to block such development

Regarding the review, the court found that the arguments concerning the regularization of Shalimar Bagh village and the classification of the road (collector vs. arterial) had already been considered and recorded in the original judgment

The court noted that the petitioners lacked registered sale deeds or established titles, occupying acquired land as encroachers. Consequently, no "error apparent" was found

Regarding the fresh writ petition, the court observed that the new petitioners were serial-numbered signatories to the original Special Power of Attorney in the first case; thus, they were bound by the previous dismissal

The court analyzed the May 4 notice and found it consistent with its prior direction to offer ex-gratia compensation and a "sympathetic" vacation period

The court refused to appoint a Commissioner to measure the road, citing previous reviews of drone footage and maps. The petitioners were ordered to vacate the premises by May 30, 2026, in line with the original directions, while the authorities were permitted to proceed with demolition and expansion thereafter