Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6054 (JK)

M/S M. R. INDUSTRIES v. STATE (NOW UT) OF J AND K AND ORS. (INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE)

RP/2/2025 · 2025-02-17

Sanjay Dhar

Review Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

RP No. 2/2025 in[MA 141/2013] Page 1 of 3 S. No. 5 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR RP No. 2/2025 in[MA 141/2013] CM(157/2025) M/S M. R. INDUSTRIES ... Petitioner(s) Through: -Mr. R.A.Jan, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Humaira Sajad, Advocate Vs. UT OF J&K AND OTHERS …Respondent(s) Through: -None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 1) Through the medium of present petition the petitioner is seeking review of judgment dated 17.12.2024 passed by this Court, whereby appeal filed by the review petitioner against order dated 22.07.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar has been dismissed. 2) It appears that the review petitioner/plaintiff had filed a suit before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, inter alia, seeking an injunction against the respondents/defendants for restraining them from interfering with the use and occupation of plot of land bearing No.63-C situated at Industrial Estate Zainakote, Srinagar. Alongwith suit, the review petitioner had filed an application for grant of interim injunction. The learned trial Court RP No. 2/2025 in[MA 141/2013] Page 2 of 3 vide its order dated 22.07.2013 dismissed the application of the review petitioner/plaintiff for grant of interim relief. The said order came to be challenged by the review petitioner/plaintiff by way of appeal before this Court which was registered as MA No.141/2013. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court in terms of judgment dated 17.12.2024, which is under review. 3) The ground urged by the petitioner for impugning the judgment under review is that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment, inasmuch as, the respondents in their memo of objections have averred that the plot of land, which is subject matter of the suit, was offered for allotment to M/S Shabnum Engineering Works, but this Court has recorded in its judgment under review that the plot in question belonged to some migrant. 4) I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner and I have perused record of the case. 5) If we have a look at the memo of objections filed by the respondents in the main appeal, a copy whereof has been placed on record alongwith review petition, it is revealed that the respondents had taken a stand that the lease deed in respect of the plot in question was executed between M/s Shabnum Engineering Works and the respondents, but in the same memo of objections the respondents have clearly stated that the said plot of land had been allotted to kashmiri migrants by the Government and lease deeds to that effect were also executed but due to the conduct of the RP No. 2/2025 in[MA 141/2013] Page 3 of 3 appellant the process of transferring the possession of the plot to the migrants has been stopped. 6) Thus, the respondents had clearly taken a stand that the suit plot belonged to a third person, as the allotment of the said plot had been made in favour of the migrants and the process for transfer of possession to the said migrants was being stalled by the conduct of the appellant. Even if it is assumed that the plot of land in question belonged to M/s Shabnum Engineering Works, still then it would not enhance the case of the review petitioner, because in any case, plot in question was never allotted in favour of the review petitioner. Hence his possession over the said plot of land was that of unauthorised occupant which could not have been protected by the trial Court in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) through LRs, AIR 2012 SC 1727. 7) For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any error, much less error apparent on the face of record in the judgment under review. The review petition is without any merit and is dismissed accordingly. (SANJAY DHAR) JUDGE SRINAGAR 17.02.2025 Sarveeda Nissar Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Sarveeda Nissar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document every page at bottom left side 18.02.2025 17:13