Writ Petition against road expansion is not maintainable where occupants lack registered title and encroach upon acquired land.

The Petitioners, occupants of Khasra No. 12(min) and 13(min) in Village Haiderpur, challenged the expansion of Road No. 320 to a 30-meter width.

In an earlier judgment dated April 6, 2026, the Court had ordered the expansion to proceed while granting occupants time until May 30, 2026, to vacate.

The occupants subsequently filed a Review Petition based on a new Gazette notification regarding village regularization and contested the intended road width.

Simultaneously, two occupants filed a fresh Writ Petition [W.P.(C) 6338/2026] challenging an eviction notice dated May 4, 2026, which offered ₹3 lakhs ex-gratia compensation for vacating by May 15.

1. Whether the Gazette notification for regularization of the village and the classification of the road as a "collector road" constitute errors apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the previous judgment.

2. Whether a fresh Writ Petition is maintainable by parties who were represented through a Special Power of Attorney in the original litigation.

3. Whether the executive notice regarding ex-gratia compensation and early vacation deadlines exceeded the Court’s directions.

The Court applied the principles of Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires an "error apparent on the face of record" for interference.

occupants of acquired land without registered title deeds (claiming only via GPAs) lack a legal right to stop developmental projects.

the doctrine of Res Judicata or finality of litigation, holding that separate petitions by the same interest groups against the same subject matter are not maintainable.

The Court found no grounds for review, noting that the arguments regarding regularization and road width were already recorded and considered in the original judgment.

It emphasized that the occupants failed to establish legal title, as most claimed rights through unregistered GPAs rather than sale deeds.

The Court held that determining road width for developmental projects is a policy and administrative matter, not a judicial one.

Regarding the new Writ Petition, the Court observed that the Petitioners were already parties to the previous litigation via a Special Power of Attorney and thus could not initiate fresh proceedings for the same cause.

The May 4 notice was found to be in compliance with the Court's earlier direction to the GNCTD to decide on sympathetic ex-gratia compensation.

The Court reaffirmed that expansion of Road No. 320 must proceed; occupants must vacate by May 30, 2026, and those shifting by May 15 are eligible for the ₹3 lakhs ex-gratia payment and licensed accommodation at Savda Ghevra.