Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Salam Dar vs Union Territory Of J And K And Ors on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
Serial No. 28
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(7193/2024) IN RP 79/2024 CM(7194/2024)
ABDUL SALAM DAR
...Petitioner/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Khan Sameer, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS
Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqub, GA vice
Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA.
...Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
08.04.2026
CM No. (7193/2024);
For the reasons stated in the application coupled with submissions made
at bar, the same is allowed and a delay caused in filing review petition is
condoned.
CM disposed of and main review petition is taken on board for
consideration.
RP 79/2024;
1. The review petitioners have sought review of order/judgment dated
27-09-2024 passed by this Court in Regular First Appeal No. 10/2023 filed by
the review petitioners against the judgment dated 19-09-2022 passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag, whereby reference under Section
18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act against the Award
passed by Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag, on 11-01-2025 has been
dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation. Vide the
judgment under review, this Court has upheld the order passed by the
learned reference court by making the following observations.
“10) Perusal of application made by appellant before
Collector for reference does not show the reasons for delay
in making application after limitation period. It is simply
submitted by appellant in his application that he is
owner/proprietor of land measuring 02 Kanals 14 Marlas
which was notified on 18th August 2005 and payment was
taken by him under/on protest and finally land under
question was acquired in the month of March 2012. On his
own showing, appellant was well aware about issuance of
award when he received the compensation, may be, under
protest, but he did not file application for more two years.
He has not given any cogent or material reason for not
approaching making application under Section 18 of Land
Revenue Act for reference. Thus, the Trial Court has
rightly dismissed appellant’s application.”
2. The review petitioners/appellants have sought review of the judgment
under review on the grounds that no issue was framed by the learned
reference court with regard to limitation and, therefore, it was not open to
the learned reference court to dismiss the reference made by the Collector.
It has been contended that Allahabad High Court, in the case of State of UP
vs. Abdul Karim, First Appeal No. 26/1953 decided on 27-10-2025, has held
that once reference is made by the Collector, the same cannot be dismissed
by the reference court on the ground of limitation.
3. So far as the legal position as regards the scope of jurisdiction of this Court
to review its own judgment is concerned, the same is well settled. The High
Court exercises its powers under review in terms of Rule 65 of the High
Court Rules. As per the said Rule an application for review can be
entertained only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
The said provision lays down the power of review can be exercised on the
grounds when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or in a
case where there is a discovery of new and important matter of evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or
could not be produced by the review petitioner at the time when the order
under review is passed. The power of review can also be exercised for any
sufficient reason. The courts have interpreted the expression “for any
sufficient reason” as a reason which is akin to the aforesaid two reasons. In
no other case, the court can exercise its power of review.
4. Turning to the facts of the present case, the ground urged by the review
petitioners is that the reference court could not have dismissed the
reference on the ground of limitation once the Collector had made the
reference. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by this Court while
passing the judgment under review. Para (10) of the judgment, which has
been reproduced herein before gives the details in this regard. The question
whether this court has taken a legally correct view while holding that a
reference court was within its jurisdiction to dismiss the reference on the
grounds of limitation cannot form a ground for review. This Court may have
or may not have erred in taking a particular view, but merely because the
court has gone wrong either on the facts or on law cannot be a ground for
review of the judgment. The grounds urged in the appeal which have been
decided in terms of the impugned judgment, are similar to the grounds
which are being urged by the review petitioners in the present petition. This
is simply an attempt on the part of the review petitioners to re-agitate the
issues which have already been decided by this Court in the judgment under
review. The same is impermissible in law.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this review petition. The
same is dismissed accordingly.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
SRINAGAR
08.04.2026
Sarvar