Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Godavri Devi Aged- 81 Years vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir Through on 17 April, 2026
S. No. 1
Suppl. list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
THROUGH VIRTUAL MODE
RP 27/2019 IN[OWP 1374/2013] CM(3541/2019)
Godavri Devi Aged- 81 years
W/O Late Sh. Bhag Mal
R/0 Village- Badhole, Tehsil Ram Nagar, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
District- Udhampur
[
Through: Mr. Dhiraj Chowdhary, Advocate.
Vs.
1. State of Jammu & Kashmir through ...Respondent(s)
Commissioner/ Secretary to Govt.
Public Works Department, Civil Sectt. Sri Nagar
2. Chief Engineer P.W.D, Jammu
3. District Collector, Udhampur
4. Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Udhampur
5. Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D,
Ram Nagar, District-Udhampur
Through: Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY, JUDGE
ORDER
17.04.2026
1. This review petition has been filed against a judgment dated 25 th
July, 2018 passed in OWP No. 1374/2013 titled “Godavri Devi
versus State & Ors.“, whereby the petition was disposed of with a
direction to respondents No. 1, 2, 4, and 5, in particular respondent
No. 4, i.e., Executive Engineer, PWD Udhampur, to take up the
matter with the Revenue Authorities afresh for demarcation of the
land on spot to ascertain as to what extent petitioners’ land has been
used for the construction of the aforementioned road, if any, with
further directions to the concerned Revenue Authorities to do the
needful in regard to demarcation; and complete the exercise
thereafter within two weeks after demarcation of the land and send
the indent to the Collector for acquisition of the said land with
further direction to complete the acquisition proceedings, within two
weeks thereafter.
2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before
this court in this Review Petition, is that the particulars of the land in
the judgment sought to be reviewed has been referred as land
measuring 1.5 kanals comprising of Khasra No. 537 situate at
Badhole, Tehsil Ram Nagar, District Udhampur to the extent of
petitioner-Godavri, whereas the fact of the matter is that the land
was comprising of Khasra No. 527 instead of 537. The learned
counsel has fairly stated that this error has crept into the judgment
from the petition filed by the petitioner and, as such, the same is
required to be rectified.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents, ex-adverso, disputed this
fact that this correction is not required to be made by this court
invoking the review jurisdiction as whatever particulars had been
mentioned by the petitioner in her petition had been reflected in the
judgment, sought to be reviewed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the backdrop of the
submissions, seeks withdrawal of this petition with liberty to file
fresh petition on the same cause of action which had accrued to the
petitioner, at the time of the filing of the earlier petition.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and not being opposed by the learned counsel for the
respondents, the Review Petition is dismissed as withdrawn along
with pending application(s), with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh
petition if the cause survives.
(MA CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
17.04.2026
“Hilal”