Serial No. 27 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(7190/2024) IN RP 78/2024 CM(7191/2024) MOHAMMAD RAMZAN DAR AND ORS …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Khan Sameer, Adv. VERSUS UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS Through: Mr. Furqan Yaqoob, GA vice Mr. Ilyas Laway, GA. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 08.04.2026 CM No. (7190/2024); 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 78/2024; 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