Serial No. 19 REGULAR LIST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(4667/2023) IN RP 61/2023 UT OF JK & ORS …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Waseem Gul, GA with Ms Nowbahar Khan, AC Vs. MOHAMMAD RAMZAN LONE ...Respondent(s) Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 27.04.2026 CM No. 4667/2023 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 614 days for seeking review of a judgment of this Court dated 28th October, 2021, passed in OWP No. 1884/2014 and OWP No. 205/2018 titled “Mohammad Ramzan Lone Vs. State of JK & Ors.” 2. A huge delay of 614 days is sought to be explained in the following manner: “That immediately upon receipt of a copy of the judgment sought to be reviewed, the matter was brought to the notice of the competent authority. It remained under examination in the Administrative Department. The relevant record from the concerned quarters was collected, and the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs were approached for grant of sanction. The sanction was received on 10th May, 2023, and thereafter the petition was filed without any wasting of time.” This is the explanation by the applicants to explain the delay. 3. From reading of the application, it clearly transpires that the applicants are impressing upon this Court to believe that the matter remained under consideration of the Administrative Department and other authorities for 614 days, and it was only after a deliberations spreading over 614 days, it was decided to file the MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.26 review petition. The explanation tendered does not constitute sufficient cause by any means so as to entitle the applicants to seek condonation of a huge delay of 614 days. 4. Otherwise also, we have gone through the judgment sought to be reviewed, which does not appear to suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. This Court had found that the notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were not published in the two daily newspapers having wide circulation, nor were they published in the Government Gazette. 5. The review is sought on the ground that, as per the record available with the applicants, the two notifications stood published in daily two newspapers, i.e., “Khidmat” and “Iqbali Kashmir”. Without commenting much on this, we have no manner of doubt and can take a judicial notice of the fact that these two newspapers are not widely circulated newspapers in the area where the subject land was situated and these are some unknown newspapers of one page published at unknown destinations. 6. Be that as it may, delay of 614 days has not been explained nor we do find anything shockingly erroneous in the judgment which would impel us to invoke the equitable equity in favour of the applicant-Union Territory. 7. This application is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, RP No. 61/2023 shall also stand dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 27.04.2026 “ARIF” MIR ARIF MANZOOR I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 29.04.26