Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 318 (JK)

Gh. Rasool Dar v. State of Jammu and Kashmir

2015-07-06

HASNAIN MASSODI, N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

body2015
JUDGMENT : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. Caveat No. 683 of 2015 is discharged. 2. This appeal is directed against the order made in OWP No. 67 of 2015 dated 11.05.2015 which was disposed of along with two other writ petitions. The said writ petition was filed by the appellants praying for issuance of writ of mandamus not to convert the Kul or any portion of Kul flowing through the land belonging to the appellants falling under survey nos. 977, 980, 967 and 972 in Tehsil Keegam into pathway and not to disturb the right of privacy of the appellants by converting any portion of the Kul into the pathway and permit the appellants to raise the concrete wall round their personal proprietary land. 3. The learned Single Judge while hearing the writ petition noticed that appellants have earlier preferred writ petition no’s 763/2012 and 615/2014, praying for similar relief and this Court have passed directions to remove the encroachments in the said writ petitions and by suppressing the said fact the present writ petition has been filed and in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in the above two writ petitions, the attempt on the part of the appellants to file a fresh writ petition, without disclosing the same, is interference in the process of administration of justice. The learned Single Judge after giving such a finding dismissed the writ petition by imposing costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited before the Registrar Judicial within two weeks who in turn was directed to pay the said amount to an orphanage of repute for being spent on the welfare of the orphans. 4. The contention of the appellants in this appeal is that the said writ petitions were not in any connection with entire area of the property in dispute and by over sight the earlier proceedings were not disclosed and the said conduct of the appellants may be condoned. Learned counsel for the appellants ultimately submitted that at least the imposition of costs on the appellants may be deleted. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the paper book. 6. It is not in dispute that the issue raised by the appellants have been rejected by this Court and positive direction was given to remove the encroachment, hence the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the paper book. 6. It is not in dispute that the issue raised by the appellants have been rejected by this Court and positive direction was given to remove the encroachment, hence the learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. However, we are of the view that imposition of costs having caused prejudice to the appellants, the same be deleted. 7. Accordingly the writ appeal is disposed of by deleting the costs awarded by the learned Single Judge and in all respects the appeal stands dismissed along with connected CMP.