SATYA DEVI AND ORS v. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR TH. SECRETARY REHABILITATION DEPTT AND OTHERS
RP/50/2022 · 2025-11-07
Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Writ Petition (Civil)body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13593 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 13593 (JK) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
h475 S.No.10
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
Satya Devi & ors.
…..Petitioner(s)
Through:-Mr. Abhishek Wazir, Advocate.
V/s
UT of J&K & ors.
...Respondent(s)
Through:-Mr. Sharieq Mehmood, Advocate
CORAM: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER 07.11.2025
1. Original petitioner-Ramnik Singh had filed WP(C) 4237/2019 in this Court seeking quashing of: (i)
order passed on File No.597/FC-AP dated 13.11.2018 passed by Financial Commissioner (Revenue), respondent No. 2 herein; (ii)
order passed on file No. OQ/Misc/01 dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Tehsildar Marheen, respondent No. 4 herein; and (iii)
Order No.453/FC-AP dated 21.11.2019 passed by Financial Commissioner-respondent No.2.
2. The said petition came to be disposed of in terms of order dated 01.02.2022 with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, relevant paragraphs whereof is reproduced hereunder:
“Keeping in view the statement made by the learned counsel for the private respondents, the Court sets aside the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Tehsildar Marheen. The matter shall be decided by the Tehsildar after due notice is given by him to the parties concerned and the parties are
RP No.50/2022 (in WP(C) No.4237/2019)
2
heard in the matter. The Tehsildar is at liberty to pass the appropriate orders as he deems fit after hearing both the sides, uninfluenced by earlier order dated 16.11.2021 passed by him. The Court has not expressed any opinion otherwise on the merits of the case”
3. After the disposal of said writ petition, petitioner-Ramnik Singh filed the instant review petition on the ground that while disposing of WP(C) No.4237/2019 in terms of order dated 01.02.2022, due to inadvertent typographical mistake in the said order it came to be written as order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Tehsildar Marheen, whereas actually it was order dated 16.11.2019, which was passed by the Tehsildar Marheen.
4. During the pendency of said review petition, petitioner-Ramnik Singh had died on 30.08.2024 and in his place, his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 28.05.2025 passed in CM No.6296/2024.
5. I have carefully gone through the writ record. The error is apparent on the record, it is order dated 16.11.2019, which was passed by the Tehsildar Marheen, whereas due to inadvertent typographical mistake it has been referred as order dated 16.11.2021 in the order passed by this Court dated 01.02.2022 in WP(C) No.4237/2019.
5. Viewed thus, the instant review petition is allowed and it is ordered that wherever it is written as 16.11.2021 in the order dated 01.02.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4237/2019, the same shall be read as order dated 16.11.2019, which was passed by the Tehsildar Marheen.
3
6. This order shall form part of order dated 01.02.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4237/2019.
7.
Disposed of.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) Judge
Jammu 07.11.2025 (Anil Sanhotra)