GHULAM QADIR PARRAY Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition has been thrown to an order dtd. 13/6/2016, propounded by learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in appeal File No.01/2016 titled 'Ghulam Mohammad Dar vs. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Rural Development, J&K, and Others', vide which, on the joint submission/suggestion made at bar by counsels for the parties and consensus arrived at, the suit filed by respondent No.5 was disposed of with certain directions and the trial court was directed to draw the decree sheet.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that on the request of official respondents, he donated 01 kanal of land under Khasra No.1487 situated atHalqaNagbal-B for construction of Apna Panchayat Ghar. According to the petitioner, a detailed report was called vide communication dtd. 30/9/2015, which indicates that his land was taken over and the proposed Panchayat Ghar was agreed to be constructed over his land and it was also agreed that the construction work will be carried out by the petitioner and his son will be employed as Chowkidar. The petitioner dumped the building material on the aforesaid land for construction of the Panchayat Ghar.

(3.) The allegation of the petitioner is that respondent No.5, who has no role in the construction of Apna Panchayat Ghar, filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that the land of Mohammad Jabbar Bhat, respondent No.6 herein and Reyaz Ahmad Bhat was more appropriate for construction of the said Panchayat Ghar and the land of the petitioner, which is nearer to a Nallah, was not appropriate for the purpose. The trial court i.e. learned Sub Jude, Anantnag, vide order dtd. 31/12/2015, dismissed the interim application filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.5, which order came to be assailed by the said respondent in an appeal in the court below. It is further alleged by the petitioner that in both the suit and the appeal, respondent No.5 concealed the fact that the Panchayat Ghar in question was proposed to be constructed on his land and he had already dumped the building material for construction. According to the petitioner, the parties to the suit compromised the appeal without impleadment of the petitioner as a necessary party.