Serial no. 1 Suppl cause list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU (Through Virtual Mode) RP 2/2025 in LPA 182/2024 CM 586/2025 Ram Lal and Others …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Srishti Paul Mengi, Advocate Vs. UT of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary, Revenue Department and Others …Respondent (s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDER 10.12.2025 1. This is a petition by the petitioners seeking review of the order and judgment dated 18th December, 2024, passed by this Court in LPA No. 182/2024 titled “Ram Lal and Ors vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir”, whereby this Court after having heard both the sides and having gone through the material on record came to the conclusion that the judgment impugned passed by the Writ Court was not flawed in any manner and, accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. 2. The judgment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that this Court has failed to appreciate the legal and factual position obtaining in the case in correct perspective. It is submitted that the doctrine of estoppel was not available against the illegal operation of brick kiln run in violation of law. That this Court while deciding the appeal did not take note of the directions passed by the Division Bench in some PIL which was pertaining to the running of stone crushers. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the considered opinion that the grounds on which the judgment can be reviewed as envisaged under Order 47 are not made out. We could not find any material on record of the review petition which would persuade us to hold that the judgment which we have passed suffers from an error of law and fact apparent on the face of record. The judgment has been passed on the basis of pleadings of the parties and the material on record. The judgment passed by us may not be to the liking of the petitioners and, if aggrieved, they have a remedy under law against the judgment. Surely the review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to recall concluded judgment, that too, on the grounds which are not traceable to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 4. It is also not the case of the petitioners that this Court has failed to take note of certain developments which had taken place after the filing of the appeal despite same had been brought to the notice of this Court. There is no subsequent development in the matter which, if taken note of at this stage, would persuade us to recall our judgment under review. 5. Viewed from any angle, the petitioners have failed to make out a case for review of the judgment. This petition is found devoid of merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 10.12.2025 “Shahid Manzoor”