The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a review petition filed by Man Mohan Singh Attri challenging the demolition and reconstruction of Signature View Apartments. The court upheld its earlier decision, citing structural safety concerns and the recommendations of expert bodies.
Background of the Case
The review petition arose from a batch of connected matters, including W.P.(C) 3760/2024 and CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024, where the court had initially allowed the demolition and reconstruction of Signature View Apartments. The petitioner, Man Mohan Singh Attri, sought a review of the judgment dated December 23, 2024, arguing that the court had overlooked factual and legal submissions.
The petitioner contended that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) lacked the authority to demolish the apartments and instead proposed repair works. He also alleged a conspiracy between DDA officials and the Resident Welfare Association (RWA), claiming fraud was played upon the court. Additionally, the petitioner disputed the validity of a structural report submitted by Shashank Bishnoi from IIT Delhi, arguing it was prepared in a private capacity and not through official channels.
Read also:- High Court Stays Suspension Order of Gram Panchayat Secretary, Cites Prima Facie Case
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The court, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna, emphasized the limited scope of review petitions. Quoting the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others (2013), the court reiterated that a review is not an appeal and can only be entertained on grounds of:
- Discovery of new evidence.
- Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above.
The court noted that the petitioner’s objections to the IIT Delhi report had already been considered and rejected during the original hearing. It highlighted that the report was part of a broader evaluation, including findings from the National Council for Cement and Building Materials (NCCBM), the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). These reports unanimously concluded that the buildings were structurally unsafe and required demolition.
Key Observation:
"The structures of the residential buildings in question are inherently weak, as sub-standard building materials have been used for construction. The IIT, Delhi has stated in clear terms that there is little to no chance of achieving the desired life of the structures, even if preventive measures or repairs are undertaken."
The court also dismissed the petitioner’s claim of being prejudiced due to the clubbing of petitions. It clarified that all connected petitions were heard together as they involved common issues, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to present his case.
Legal Principles on Review Jurisdiction
The judgment extensively referenced Supreme Court rulings to outline the narrow scope of review petitions:
- A review cannot re-examine the merits of a case (State of Telangana vs. Mohd. Abdul Qasim, 2024).
- Errors must be apparent on the face of the record and not require detailed reasoning to identify (S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy, 2022).
- A review is not an avenue to re-argue points already adjudicated.
The court concluded that the petitioner’s arguments were an attempt to re-litigate the matter, which is impermissible in review proceedings.
After a thorough examination, the court found no error apparent on the record or any valid grounds for review. The petition was dismissed, and the earlier judgment directing the demolition and reconstruction of Signature View Apartments was upheld.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea: ₹50,000 Monthly Maintenance for Wife and Child Upheld
This decision underscores the judiciary’s reliance on expert opinions in matters of public safety and its reluctance to entertain review petitions that seek to re-argue settled issues. The judgment reaffirms the principle that review jurisdiction is not a tool for rehearing cases but a mechanism to correct glaring errors.
Case Title: Man Mohan Singh Attri vs. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: Review Petition No. 183/2025 in W.P.(C) 3760/2024