GH QADIR DAR Vs. COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION
LAWS(J&K)-2006-11-26
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on November 06,2006

Gh Qadir Dar Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) GHULAM Qadir Dar and eight others have filed this application under Section 14 of Limitation Act seeking exclusion of time spent by the appellants in prosecuting their petition filed under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of order dated 9th of November 2005 passed, on reference, by Principal District Judge, Srinagar under Section 31 of the State Land Acquisition Act and treating the appeal of the appellants against judgment dated 9.11.2005 of learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation.
(2.) THE applicants submit that aggrieved by judgment dated 9th of November 2005 of learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar recorded in file No. 12/Reference/2/Transfer on reference, made by Collector Land Acquisition Gazigund -Baramulla Rail Project, they filed a petition under Section 114 read with order 47 of CPC seeking review of order dated 9th of November 2005. They had been prosecuting .this reference with due diligence before the learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar, who vide his order dated 31st of December 2005 allowed the reference finding that there was mistake apparent on the face of records which was required to be rectified. The case projected by the applicants was found by learned District Judge to be a fit case for exercise of powers under Order 47 of the CPC. Learned District Judge accordingly while up -setting his earlier order dated 9th of November 2005, directed re -trial of the reference.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order of learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar on review, the respondents preferred CIMA No. 02/2006 in this Court. This Court, while allowing the appeal, held that the learned District Judge while exercising the powers of review had transgressed its limits and that the grievance of the applicants could be projected for redressal in a Court of appeal and not in exercise of power of review. The applicants were left free by the Court to approach higher forum for appropriate remedy available to them under law. The applicants, therefore, urge that the time spent by them in prosecuting their review application before learned Principal District Judge, Srinagar was required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation as provided under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.