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 aresidential 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
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”
