Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Exercised to Re-adjudicate Disputed Questions of Fact or Re-hear Original Arguments

The review petitioners claimed to be legal heirs of landowners whose property in village Channi Himmat was allegedly utilized by the respondents for road construction without formal acquisition or compensation

This matter has a protracted litigation history: a 2003 writ petition was dismissed with liberty to approach a Civil Court

a 2004 LPA was disposed of based on an affidavit by the Chief Engineer stating the department was not interfering with possession

a subsequent 2004 writ was dismissed for non-prosecution

The petitioners filed OWP No. 425/2010 seeking compensation, which was dismissed on 23.02.2022

The Court previously held that the timing and authorship of the road construction were disputed questions of fact unsuitable for writ jurisdiction

The petitioners now seek a review of that dismissal, alleging the Court overlooked records showing road widening (rather than repair) and internal government reports regarding compensation funds

1. Whether there exists a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record justifying the review of the judgment dated 23.02.2022.

2. Whether a review petition can be used to re-argue a case on merits or adjudicate disputed questions of fact previously relegated to a Civil Court.

The Court applied Rule 65 of the J&K High Court Rules read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which restricts review to the discovery of new evidence, a mistake/error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons

It relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, establishing that review is not an "appeal in disguise" and is not maintainable for the repetition of old arguments or where two views are possible

Further, it cited Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi to underscore that power of review is not an appellate power to correct erroneous decisions on merits, but is limited to patent errors

The Court observed that the petitioners were essentially seeking a re-hearing of the original matter, which is impermissible under review jurisdiction

The petitioners’ arguments regarding technical reports and the nature of road construction (widening vs. macadamization) were attempts to resolve disputed questions of fact

The Court reasoned that an error is not "apparent on the face of the record" if it requires a process of reasoning or "fishing out" to be detected

Since the core dispute—whether the road was built on the petitioners' land and by whom—remains a factual controversy, the Court found no manifest error in its prior decision to decline discretionary writ jurisdiction and leave the parties to the Civil Court

Revisiting the internal government correspondence cited by the petitioners would involve re-opening arguments already considered and rejected

The review petition was dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that the petitioners must approach the Civil Court to resolve the disputed questions of fact regarding land utilization and compensation