Gulshan Ara vs Union Territory Of J And K And on 27 February, 2026

Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench

Gulshan Ara vs Union Territory Of J And K And on 27 February, 2026

Author: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

Bench: Moksha Khajuria Kazmi

                                                              Serial No. 20
                                                             Regular Cause list
  HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                 AT SRINAGAR
                  WP(C) 295/2023 CM 4333/2025 CM No 2940/2024

GULSHAN ARA                                             ...Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through:    Mr. N.A. Ronga, Advocate
                                       Vs.

UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND
                                                                    ...Respondent(s)
OTHERS.
Through: Mr. S.A. Wani, Advocate

CORAM:
     HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE.
                                    ORDER

27.02.2026
CM No. 4333/2025:

1. By this application, the learned counsel for the applicants/respondents is

seeking impleadment of Shakuntala Bhan W/O Rajinder Kumar Bhat D/O

Shambunath Jalali R/O Q No. F-7, Buta Nagar near Green land Place

Jammu City through her attorney Aijaz Ahmad Hazari inter alia on the

ground that the subject matter of the writ petition, the landed estate, is

owned by the applicant and her interests are, as such directly involved in

the adjudication of the writ petition in hand.

2. The application has been resisted by the other side i.e., petitioner by filing

detailed objections to the application in hand, stating therein inter alia that

the property in question is lawfully owned by the petitioner having been

inherited by her from her parents who were previously its owners from the

year 1970. The document in the shape of General Power of Attorney

enclosed with the application appears to be a forged document as it does

not bear the date of execution and besides being unregistered; the land

measuring 18 Marlas falling under Khasra No. 4 (old) and Khasra No. 8

(new), the subject matter of the writ petition, is not reflected in the said

General Power of Attorney; applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper

party in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC; the non-applicant/petitioner is in
occupation of the land for more than three decades and has constructed a

residential house over it in the year 2001 after obtaining proper building

permission from the competent authority; the land mafia of the area had

filed an application before the respondent No.2 alleging the land in question

to be a migrant property and the petitioner having raised an illegal

construction over it in violation of status quo order of 03.06.2022 passed

by respondent No. 2 in case titled ‘Shakuntala vs. Deputy Commissioner

Srinagar‘ and the respondent No.2, under the influence of land mafia,

entertained the application and passed an ex-parte order dated 04.11.2022

directing the respondents to dismantle the structure of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner while making submission

in opposition to the application has referred to Section 17 of the

Registration Act to emphasize that the General Power of Attorney can be

said to be valid if the same is registered.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on

record.

5. It appears that the applicant had filed the impleadment application earlier

also being CM No. 2940/2024 in the year 2024 which is pending and the

applicant, during the pendency of such application, has filed one more

application for the same purpose i.e., the application in hand CM No.

4333/2025. Since both the applications are filed for the same purpose,

therefore this order would govern both.

6. The impleadment application filed by the applicant is solely based on the

ground that the property in dispute belongs to the applicant while she has

not been made party in the writ petition. It further appears from the

objections of the petitioner itself that the applicant’s name has figured in

the litigation before the revenue authorities over the same subject matter.

In that view of the matter, the applicant does not, prima facie, appear to be

SPONSORED

a stranger to the dispute in hand altogether. Furthermore, the impleadment

of the applicant as party to the dispute in hand is not going to prejudice the

interest of the petitioner in any possible way. On the contrary, the

impleadment would advance the cause of justice as the pleas of all the

interested persons would be addressed and adjudicated.

7. In view of above, the applications being CM No. 4333/2025 and CM No.

2940/2024 are allowed and the above named applicant is impleaded as party

to the writ petition in the array of respondents. The applicant shall figure as

respondent No. 11 in the cause title. Registry shall update the cause title

accordingly.

8. CM Nos. 4333/2025 and 2940/2024 are disposed of on the above lines.

9. List the main petition on 7th of April, 2026.

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR:

27.02.2026
“Misba”