HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU LPA No.96/2022 1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar/Jammu. 2. Financial Commissioner, (Revenue) J&K State Jammu 3. Divisional Commissioner, Jammu. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Ramban. ...Appellant(s) Through: Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr.AAG V/s 1. Inhabitants of Village Thatharka through Mohd Saleem Mulah S/o Ghulam Mohammad R/O Block Sangaldan Village Thatharka Dislrict Ramban. 2. Mohd Khalil Dar S/o Habibulah R/O Block Sangaldan Village Thatharka District Ramban. 3. Ghulam Hussain S/o Abdullah R/o Block Sangaldan Village Thatharka District Ramban 4. Atta Mohd. Hajam S/o Abdul Razaq R/o Block Sangaldan Village Thatharka District Ramban ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr.Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE ORDER 04.03.2025 1. The order impugned in this appeal is challenged primarily on the ground that the Government Order dated 21st October, 2014, whereby the Tehsil was sanctioned for Thatharka in District Ramban, stood already kept in abeyance by the Government. However, the said fact was not brought to the notice of the Writ Court at the time of consideration of the matter. It is submitted that at the time the matter was heard by the Writ Court, there was no representation on behalf of the Union Territory and, therefore important aspect aforesaid could not be highlighted before the Writ Court. S.No.12 LPA No. 96/2022 2 2. Ms. Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the appellants, submits that had order keeping order dated 21.10.2014 in abeyance been brought to the notice of the Writ Court, result would have been different. 3. Be that as it may, the ground on which the impugned judgment is assailed cannot be agitated in the letters patent appeal. This may be a sufficient ground for the appellant to seek review of the judgment by bringing on record the fact which at the relevant time was not brought to the notice of the Writ Court. 4. Faced with the aforesaid position, Ms. Kohli, learned Sr.AAG, prays for withdrawal of the appeal with liberty to the appellants to file review petition before the Writ Court. Her statement is taken on record. 5. Accordingly, the appeal along with connected applications is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to seek review of the impugned judgment. Needless to say that while considering the review petition, if any filed by the appellants, the period spent in this Court shall be eschewed from computation of the limitation. (Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar) Judge Judge JAMMU: 04.03.2025 Vinod, PS Vinod Kumar 2025.03.05 12.34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Jammu