Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
M/S M. R. Industries vs Ut Of J&K And Others on 17 February, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
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
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
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
every page at bottom left side
