Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Ali Mohammad Dar vs National Highways Authority Of India on 7 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No. 149/2026
CM No. 2585/2026
Reserved on: 05.05.2026
Pronounced on: 07 .05.2026
Uploaded on: 08 .05.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: Full
Ali Mohammad Dar ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
S/O Ghulam Nabi Dar
R/O Sangam District Anantnag
Aged 52 years
Through: Mr. S. N Ratanpuri , Advocate
Vs.
1. National Highways Authority of India ...Respondent(s).
through Project Director, NHAI, PIU,
Srinagar.
2. Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag
Through: Mr. Ilyas Nazir Laway, GA
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
07.05.2026
BRIEF FACTS
1. The Petitioner in the instant petition is aggrieved of Order dated 04.02.2026
passed in an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
read with Section 17-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, as also Order
dated 27.04.2026 passed in an application seeking review of Order dated
04.02.2026, by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag. The
impugned orders as per the petitioner being contrary to law, facts, and settled
1 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
principles of procedure, are liable to be set aside and are accordingly
challenged by way of the present petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel submits that land measuring 6 kanals and 2 marlas, along
with structures existing thereon, belonging to the Petitioner, came to be
acquired for the purpose of four-laning of the Srinagar-Jammu National
Highway at Village Sangam, Bijbehara, District Anantnag.
3. It is submitted that the acquisition proceedings were conducted strictly in
accordance with law and an award came to be passed. Being dissatisfied with
the quantum of compensation, the Petitioner sought reference, which initially
came to be declined.
4. It is submitted that upon intervention of this Court, the Collector was
directed to consider the claim of the Petitioner under Section 18 of the J&K
Land Acquisition Act, pursuant to which the matter was referred to the
learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag. The Reference Court, after
framing issues and recording evidence, passed a detailed award dated
15.07.2014, whereby, the petitioner was held entitled to the following
compensation:
i. “Compensation of land measuring 6 kanals 2 marlas falling
under survey No.271,272 and 273 situated at Sangam,
Bijbehara, @ Rs.30 lac per kanal;
2 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
ii. Compensation for Shane Kashmir Passenger Oriented wayside
amenities project as per EXPW-1/1 amounting to Rs. 155.96
lacs;
iii. Compensation for construction of proposed single storey
dormatry for Shane Kashmir, amounting to Rs. 11.27 lacs;
iv. Compensation for reinstallation of the petrol out let @
Rs.66.70,600/-; and
v. Compensation for loss of earnings from the date of notification
till completion of the petrol out let Rs.24.00 lacs.”
5. It is further submitted that the Reference Court clearly directed deduction of
the amount already received from the total compensation.
6. Learned counsel lays particular emphasis on the fact that an amount of
₹1,02,54,693/- was paid towards cost of demolition of structures and was not
part of compensation, which is explicitly recorded in the award itself.
7. It is submitted that this crucial aspect has been completely ignored by the
Court below while passing the impugned orders.
8. It is submitted that the award dated 15.07.2014 was challenged by
respondent No.1 before this Hon’ble Court in CFA No. 190/2014, which
came to be dismissed on 25.08.2022 both on maintainability and also on
merits.
9. Thereafter, the order passed by this Court in the above appeal came to be
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave
Petition, SLP No. 21543/2022, which also came to be dismissed on
20.02.2024, thereby rendering the award final and binding.
3 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
10.Learned counsel submits that after finality of the award, respondent No.1
filed an application dated 06.08.2024 before the learned Principal District
Judge, Anantnag, alleging excess payment.
11.It is contended that the said application was wholly vague, frivolous, and
unsupported by any cogent calculation or legal basis, and was nothing but an
attempt to reopen settled issues which had attained finality up to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
12.It is submitted that despite detailed objections filed by the Petitioner
demonstrating that all payments were made strictly in terms of the award, the
learned Court below, without proper appreciation of facts and law, allowed
the application vide order dated 04.02.2026 and directed recovery of
₹2,61,34,972/- (two crore, sixty one lakh, thirty four thousand and nine
hundred seventy two rupees) along with interest @ 6%, from the date of
receipt of the same.
13.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that review application
filed by the Petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2026
without due consideration.
14.It is submitted that the learned Court below has gravely erred in treating the
amount of ₹1,02,54,693/- paid towards demolition as part of compensation,
despite a categorical finding in the award to the contrary.
4 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
15.It is further submitted that the Court below has wrongly calculated Jabirana
@ 15% only on land compensation, whereas settled law mandates that the
same is payable on the entire compensation including value of assets
attached to the land.
16.Learned counsel submits that the adverse observations made by the Court
below imputing fraud upon the Petitioner are wholly unwarranted, baseless
and beyond jurisdiction, particularly when the Petitioner had no role in the
computation or disbursement of the compensation.
17.It is contended that the direction to pay interest on the alleged excess amount
is unjustified, inasmuch as any alleged excess payment, if at all, resulted
from official calculations and not from any act or omission attributable to the
Petitioner.
18.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned
order does not alter or modify the award but merely corrects an inadvertent
mistake resulting in double payment and prevents unjust enrichment of the
petitioner at the cost of public exchequer.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
19.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on
record.
5 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
20.At the outset, this Court is conscious of the limited scope of jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The supervisory jurisdiction is
neither appellate nor revisional in nature and is to be exercised sparingly,
only to keep subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and to
correct jurisdictional errors or manifest perversity.
21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.Suresh Vs. D.Kalaivani & Ors. reported
as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 143 has held that:
“The scope, ambit, amplitude and nature of the powers of a High
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution are discussed and
delineated by this Court in catena of decisions. Article 227 is
perceived to be a custodian of justice, which is in the nature of
extraordinary supervisory powers, discretionary in nature. In
Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil1 , this Court
cautioned that an improper and frequent exercise of this power
will be counterproductive and would divest this extraordinary
power of its strength and vitality. It was observed that this
discretionary power has to be exercised very sparingly”
22.The supervisory jurisdiction is meant to correct only jurisdictional errors,
patent perversity, or grave injustice. It is not intended to interfere with
findings of fact which have attained finality, nor to re-appreciate the
evidence nor to sit in appeal over the findings of the Court below,
particularly when the conclusions drawn are borne out from the record and
are in consonance with settled principles of law.
6 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
23.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held
that interference under Article 227 is warranted only in cases where there is
patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, or gross miscarriage of
justice. Mere possibility of a different view, or minor errors in appreciation
of facts, do not justify invocation of such extraordinary jurisdiction.
24.In the present case, the record reveals that the learned Principal District
Judge, Anantnag, has exercised jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC for a
limited and well-defined purpose, namely, to correct an arithmetical or
clerical error resulting in disbursement of an amount in excess of what was
lawfully due under the award. Such exercise in the opinion of this Court falls
squarely within the inherent powers of the Court to ensure that its process is
not abused and that its orders are not rendered instruments of injustice.
25.It is also pertinent to note that the impugned orders do not involve any re-
adjudication of rights, nor do they alter, modify, or review the award which
has already attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The exercise
undertaken by the Court below is confined to giving effect to the award in its
true spirit by preventing duplication of payment and ensuring lawful
adjustment.
26.This Court finds that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Court below
are borne out from the record, supported by objective material, and based on
7 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
a rational appreciation of facts. No perversity, arbitrariness, or non-
application of mind is discernible. On the contrary, the impugned orders
reflect a careful exercise of jurisdiction aimed at preventing unjust
enrichment and safeguarding public funds.
27.Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned orders do not suffer from
any jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality, or perversity so as to warrant
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the same
merit affirmation.
28.The principal contention of the Petitioner is that once the award dated
15.07.2014 attained finality, the Court below had become functus officio and
could not have entertained an application under Section 151 CPC read with
section 17-B of Jammu and Kashmir land Acquisition Act
29.It is well settled that the exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC
is not barred merely because the main proceedings have culminated,
provided such exercise is aimed at preventing abuse of process or securing
the ends of justice. The present case does not involve reopening or re-
adjudication of the award; rather, it concerns correction of an inadvertent
error leading to excess payment.
8 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
30.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled My Palace Mutually Aided
Cooperative Society vs B. Mahesh reported as (2022) 19 SCC 806 held
that:
“In view of the above, the law on this issue stands crystallised
to the effect that the inherent powers enshrined under Section
151 CPC can be exercised only where no remedy has been
provided for in any other provision of CPC. In the event that a
party has obtained a decree or order by playing a fraud upon
the court, or where an order has been passed by a mistake of
the court, the court may be justified in rectifying such mistake,
either by recalling the said order, or by passing any other
appropriate order. However, inherent powers cannot be used in
conflict of any other existing provision, or in case a remedy has
been provided for by any other provision of CPC.”
31.Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) preserves the inherent powers of
the Court to do real and substantial justice. The inherent powers of the Court
are not exhausted upon the conclusion of proceedings rather they continue to
subsist to prevent abuse of its process and to ensure that its orders do not
occasion injustice.
32.In the present case, the jurisdiction exercised by the learned trial Court,
while entertaining the application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil
Procedure read with section 17-B of Jammu and Kashmir land Acquisition
Act, was not for the purpose of reopening or re-adjudicating the award. The
exercise was confined to ensuring that the award is executed in its true letter
and spirit and that no party is permitted to derive an undue benefit at the cost
9 | Page CM(M) No. 149/2026
of the public exchequer. The recovery of an amount, which stands
inadvertently paid in excess by no stretch of imagination can be construed as
modification or alteration of the award.
33.It is well settled that the doctrine of restitution, embedded in Indian
jurisprudence, mandates that no person can be permitted to retain a benefit to
which he is not legally entitled. The Court, in exercise of its inherent
powers, is duty-bound to correct its own mistake and to restore the parties to
the position which they would have occupied .
34.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled Odisha Forest Development
Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Anupam Traders reported as (2022) 19 SCC806
has reiterated the well-settled principle that no party should suffer on account
of an act of the Court. It was observed that:
“The Court will have to bear in mind the maxim actus curiae
neminem gravabit, namely, no party shall suffer due to the act
of the Court.”
35.The learned Court below has merely exercised its inherent jurisdiction under
Section 151 CPC read with 17B Of Land Acquisition Act, to rectify a
manifest error in disbursement and to prevent unjust enrichment. Such an
exercise squarely falls within the ambit of its powers.
10 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
36.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the application under
Section 151 CPC read with 17B Of Land Acquisition Act was maintainable
in law, and the learned trial Court cannot be said to have acted without
jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing the same.
37.The Petitioner has vehemently contended that an amount of ₹1,02,54,693/-
was paid towards demolition of structures and did not form part of the
compensation awarded under the judgment dated 15.07.2014, and therefore,
could not have been taken into account for the purpose of adjustment.
38.At the outset, it requires to be noted that it is a well-settled principle of law
that compensation under the land acquisition is not confined merely to the
value of the land acquired, but extends to all interests therein, including
structures and assets attached to such land.
39.The said payment was inextricably linked with the process of acquisition and
constituted recompense for the structures standing upon the acquired land,
being an integral component of the overall acquisition process.
40.Once while determining compensation in the award dated 15.07.2014, it has
categorically being directed that the amount already received by the
Petitioner shall be deducted from the total compensation so awarded, the said
11 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
direction necessarily encompassed all payments made to the Petitioner in
relation to the acquired land and the assets appurtenant thereto.
41.Viewed thus, once the learned Reference Court, while determining
compensation in the award dated 15.07.2014, had categorically directed that
the amount already received by the Petitioner shall be deducted from the
total compensation so awarded, the said direction necessarily encompassed
all payments made to the Petitioner in relation to the acquired land and the
assets appurtenant thereto.
42.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the contention raised
by the Petitioner, that the aforesaid amount i.e., Rs. 2,61,34,972/-, (two
crore, sixty one lakh, thirty four thousand and nine hundred seventy two
rupees) as wholly independent and immune from adjustment, is
misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be rejected.
43.A conjoint and purposive reading of Section 17-B of the Jammu & Kashmir
Land Acquisition Act makes it abundantly clear that the statute itself
contemplates the possibility of excess payment at the stage of acquisition and
provides a definite mechanism for its adjustment and recovery. The
provision mandates that any amount paid or deposited under Section 17-A
must be taken into account while determining the final compensation, and if
such payment exceeds the amount ultimately awarded by the Collector under
12 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
Section 11, the excess amount does not vest in the claimant as a matter of
right. On the contrary, the statute obligates the recipient to refund the surplus
amount within the stipulated period, failing which the same becomes
recoverable as arrears of land revenue. For facility of reference the same is
reproduced as under:
“17-B. Determination of compensation and recovery of excess
amount. The amount paid or diposited under section 17-A,
shall be taken into account for determining the amount of
compensation re- quired to be tendered under section 32 and
where the amount so paid or deposited exceeds the
compensation awarded by the Collector under section 11, the
excess amount may unless refunded within three months from
the date of the Collector’s award be recovered as an arrear of
land revenue.”
44.It expressly stipulates that where the amount already paid exceeds the
compensation awarded by the Collector under Section 11, such excess
amount is not to be treated as a windfall or vested benefit in favour of the
claimant. Rather, the statute casts a clear obligation upon the recipient to
refund the surplus amount within the prescribed period, failing which the
same is liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The mechanism of
recovery provided is stringent and summary in nature, underscoring the
legislative intent that public funds must not be allowed to remain with a
private party beyond lawful entitlement.
13 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
45.This Court is of the considered view that Section 17-B is a statutory
embodiment of the doctrine of restitution under section 144 of Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC). It reinforces the principle that compensation is not a
matter of bounty but of strict legal entitlement, regulated by the scheme of
the Act. Any amount paid in excess amount, howsoever occasioned by
clerical mistake, or otherwise does not confer any indefeasible right upon the
claimant.
46.The action of the Court below in directing adjustment/recovery of the excess
amount is in complete consonance with the statutory mandate. Such direction
merely ensures that the award is implemented in its true spirit and that the
disbursement aligns with the compensation actually determined. To hold
otherwise would tantamount to defeat the express provision of Section 17-B
and to countenance unjust enrichment at the cost of public revenue, which
the law does not permit.
47.The contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner that Jabirana ought to
have been computed on the entire compensation, including the value of
structures and other appurtenant assets, has been carefully considered by the
Learned Trial Court.
48.It is well settled that once an award attains finality, it cannot be reopened,
reinterpreted in collateral proceedings. The proceedings before the learned
14 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
Trial Court under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) were neither
in the nature of interpretation, modification, nor enhancement of the award.
The limited scope of the application was confined only to examining, on the
basis of the award as it stood, whether any excess amount had been paid to
the Petitioner and whether such excess amount required adjustment or
recovery in accordance with law.
49.Viewed thus, the contention of the Petitioner that Jabirana ought to be
recalculated on the entire compensation is not available at this stage, more so
when the award has attained finality having been affirmed up to the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, and its terms, including the manner of computation,
cannot now be reopened or reinterpreted under the guise of fresh calculation.
50.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Court
below rightly refrained from entering into any such re-computation, and
confined itself to the limited exercise of arithmetical adjustment in terms of
the award. The contention of the Petitioner, therefore, does not merit
acceptance and is liable to be rejected.
51.The core question which falls for determination is whether the Petitioner can
be permitted to retain an amount of ₹2,61,34,972/-, (two crore, sixty one
lakh, thirty four thousand and nine hundred seventy two rupees) which is
admitted to have been received twice, as emerged from the record.
15 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
52.This Court is mindful of the settled law that governs the doctrine of
restitution. The principle is not merely equitable but has been consistently
recognised as an integral part of Indian civil jurisprudence. The object of
restitution is to restore the parties to the position which they would have
occupied but for the erroneous or unjust benefit conferred upon one party.
53.In South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2003) 8 SCC 648, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has authoritatively held that
“In law, the term ‘restitution’ is used in three senses; (i) return
or restoration of some specific thing to its rightful owner or
status; (ii) compensation for benefits derived from a wrong
done to another; (iii) compensation or reparation for the loss
caused to another. (See Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh
Edition, p.1315). The Law of Contracts by John D. Calamari &
Joseph M. Perillo has been quoted by Black to say that
‘restitution’ is an ambiguous term, sometimes referring to the
disgorging of something which has been taken and at times
referring to compensation for injury done. “Often, the result in
either meaning of the term would be the same. ….. Unjust
impoverishment as well as unjust enrichment is a ground for
restitution.”
54.Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, this Court
finds that the retention of the excess amount by the Petitioner, which has
admittedly resulted from duplication of payment under the same
compensation stream, would clearly amount to unjust enrichment. Such
enrichment is not only impermissible in law but is also opposed to public
interest, particularly when public funds are involved.
16 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
55.This Court is of the considered view that the learned Court below has
correctly applied the principles of restitution and has rightly directed refund
of the excess amount along with interest.
56.The next contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that no interest can be
imposed since the excess amount arose out of an computational error, does
not merit acceptance.
57.This Court is of the considered view that once it is established that a party
has retained an amount which, in law, was not due to him, the obligation to
restitute does not remain confined merely to the principal sum. The principle
of restitution, as, is not a narrow concept; it is a complete restorative
mechanism aimed at placing the parties in the position they would have
occupied but for the wrongful enrichment.
58.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal
Ltd. -Vs.- Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs reported in
(2005) 3 SCC 738 has held as follows:-
“31. Simply stated, “unjust enrichment” means retention of a
benefit by a person that is unjust or inequitable. “Unjust
enrichment occurs when a person retains money or benefits
which in justice, equity and good conscience, belong to someone
else. 32. The doctrine of “unjust enrichment” postulates that no
person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of
another. A right of recovery under the doctrine of “unjust
enrichment” arises where retention of a benefit is considered
contrary to justice or against equity. 33. The juristic basis of the17 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
obligation is not founded upon any contract or tort but upon a
third category of law, namely, quasi-contract or the doctrine of
restitution.”
59. This Court is of the considered view that the doctrine of unjust enrichment
is founded on the principle that no person can be permitted to retain a
benefit which, in justice, equity, and good conscience, belongs to another;
and once it is shown from the record that the Petitioner has retained an
amount not lawfully due to him, such retention becomes impermissible in
law, thereby mandating restoration of the excess amount along with interest.
60.In the present case, the Petitioner admittedly had the benefit of the amount
for a considerable period. Permitting retention of such benefit without
compensating the value of its use would defeat the very object of restitution
and would amount to allowing unjust enrichment indirectly.
61.Accordingly, this Court finds that the direction to pay interest at the rate of
6% per annum is just, reasonable, and in consonance with settled principles
of law. The interest component awarded cannot be said to be excessive or
arbitrary, but rather a balanced measure to ensure complete restitution
62.In the present case, a perusal of the review order dated 27.04.2026
demonstrates that the learned trial has correctly appreciated the limited
scope of review jurisdiction. The Court has recorded a clear and unequivocal
18 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
finding that the excess amount released in favour of the Petitioner was the
result of an inadvertent duplication in disbursement, which stood duly
established from the record. The direction for refund was manifestly justified
and aimed at ensuring faithful implementation of the award, and not in the
nature of re-adjudication or modification thereof.
63.The grounds urged in the review petition, , do not disclose any error apparent
on the face of the record, nor do they bring forth any new material
warranting reconsideration. On the contrary, the attempt of the Petitioner
was to re-agitate issues already considered and decided, which is clearly
impermissible within the confines of review jurisdiction.
64.This Court is of the considered view that the learned Court below has
exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law and has returned findings
which are well-reasoned and borne out from the material on record. No
perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity is discernible in the
impugned order.
65.Accordingly this court in agreement with the view taken by the learned trial
court, and finds no ground to interfere with both orders which are subject
matter of the instant petition.
19 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
CONCLUSION
66.Thus in the light of what has been discussed hereinabove coupled with the
settled legal position, this Court is of the considered view that no case for
interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
67. Further this Court is of the view that permitting the Petitioner to retain the
excess amount would result in clear unjust enrichment at the cost of public
funds, which is impermissible in law. The doctrine of unjust enrichment
mandates that no person can be allowed to retain a benefit which is not
legally due to him. Once it stands established from the record that an amount
has been received in excess of lawful entitlement, the obligation to
pay/restore the same arises, forthwith. Retaining the said excess amount
would not only defeat the statutory scheme governing compensation but
would also undermine the principles of equity, fairness, and public
accountability.
68. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that orders passed by the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anantnag dated 04.02.2026
and 27.04.2026 are well-reasoned, and legally sustainable. The learned trial
court has meticulously examined the entire record, and has applied settled
principles of law. The reasoning adopted is neither arbitrary nor perverse;
20 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
rather, it reflects a careful and balanced judicial approach aimed at ensuring
that no party is permitted to retain public money beyond lawful entitlement.
69.This Court further observes that the direction issued by the learned trial court
to the petitioner to deposit the excess amount of Rs.2,61,34972/- (Rupees
two Cores sixty one lakh thirty four thousand nine hundred ad seventy two
only) along with 6% interest shall be complied with within a period of one
month from the date of this order, as the time period to deposit the same in
terms of the learned trial court order has since expired. It is further made
clear that in case of failure on part of the petitioner to comply with the
aforesaid direction within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered
as arrears in terms of the Land Revenue Act.
70.Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality /infirmity or perversity
in the impugned orders dated 04.02.2026 and 27.04.2026 passed by the
learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag and the same are hereby upheld.
71.Before parting, this court would like to observe that filing of review petition
by the petitioner after earning dismissal in the application under Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) read with Section 17-B of the Land
Acquisition Act was a tactics to avoid depositing of the excess public money
and even after dismissal of the review petition, the petitioner has made
another attempt to file the instant petition by invoking the supervisory
21 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution on false and
flimsy grounds in absence of any perversity, jurisdictional infirmity, patent
illegality and that too urging similar grounds and facts which have been gone
in detail by the learned trial court by cogent reasons.
72.The petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
(WASIM SADIQ NARGAL)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
07-05-2026
Mubashir
i. Whether the judgment is speaking: Yes
ii. Whether the judgment is reportable: Yes22 | P a g e CM(M) No. 149/2026
