JUDGMENT CM No.4730/2022: 1. The applicant has filed the instant application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review petition against order dated 04.07.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.2054/2021 titled Abdul Hamid and Anr. Vs. Anwar Hussain and Ors. 2. In the application it has been submitted that the applicant had filed an application in the writ petition seeking his impleadment as party respondent. However, without the knowledge of the applicant, the writ petitioner on the basis of the statement made by his counsel withdrew the writ petition. It is submitted that the said order was passed by this Court on the basis of an application made by the writ petitioner which was taken up in the absence of the applicant. It is submitted that on account of this, the applicant did not have knowledge of order sought to be reviewed. Thus, he has sought condonation of delay in filing the review petition. 3. Having regard to the submissions made in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 19 days in filing the review petition is condoned. 4. Application is disposed of. Review Petition No.62/2022: 1. Through the medium of this petition, the applicant has sought review of order dated 04.07.2022, whereby WP(C) No.2054/2021 titled Abdul Hamid and another vs. UT of J&K and Ors has been dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the review petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the applicant had filed an application seeking his impleadment as a party respondent. It is submitted that in the writ petition an interim order came to be passed on 08.10.2021, whereby a direction was issued to Tehsildar Drass to file action taken report of communication dated 03.09.2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) Kargil, Ladakh. It is submitted that after taking benefit of the aforesaid interim order, it was not open to the writ petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. It is also submitted that under the garb of interim order dated 08.10.2021 and the contempt petition filed by the writ petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner has conducted Nishan dehi of the disputed land in absence of the applicant and after withdrawing the writ petition, the writ petitioner wants to dispossess the applicant/review petitioner. 2. On the above grounds, the review petitioner has sought review of order dated 04.07.2022. 3. 2. On the above grounds, the review petitioner has sought review of order dated 04.07.2022. 3. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record. 4. Review of an order or judgment can be directed only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a new fact has been discovered, which even after exercise of due diligence could not be brought to the notice of the Court. 5. In the instant case, none of the aforesaid two situations are applicable. The only ground on the basis of which the review petitioner is seeking review of impugned order is that the writ petitioner could not have been allowed to withdraw the writ petition after taking benefit of interim direction passed by the writ Court. As per the review petitioner, pursuant to the interim order passed by the writ Court the disputed land was demarcated in his absence. 6. Even if it is assumed that the land in question has been demarcated in the absence of the review petitioner, it is always open to him to challenge the demarcation of disputed land by filing appropriate proceedings before the higher forum. It is for the petitioner to choose whether he wants to proceed with the writ petition or withdraw the same. The Court cannot force him to proceed with his writ petition. If at all the review petitioner has any grievance against the writ petitioner, he is at liberty to take recourse to the available legal remedies but he can not force the writ petitioner to continue with the proceedings. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to review the impugned order. The review petition is dismissed accordingly.