JUDGMENT :

1. Challenge in this petition has been thrown to an order dated 13.06.2016, 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, & 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 at Halqa Nagbal-B for construction of Apna Panchayat Ghar. According to the petitioner, a detailed report was called vide communication dated 30.09.2015, 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 dated 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.

4. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order, primarily, on the ground that since he was neither impleaded as a party in the suit before the trial nor in the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 before the court below, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Countervailing the stand taken by petitioner, both the official respondents as well as private respondent are affront with the contention that present writ petition is not maintainable against an order of a civil court and the petitioner has raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be entertained by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. According to respondents, it is the petitioner who is guilty of suppression of material facts.

6. According to the respondents, both petitioner and respondent No.6, Mohammad Jabbar Bhat, offered to donate their respective lands for the construction of Panchayat Ghar in Halqa Nagbal-B, pursuant to a notice issued by respondent No.4, Block Development Officer, Block Khoveripora, Anantnag, inviting Surpunch, Punches and Village Level Committee for identification of land for construction of Panchayat Ghar. In January, 2015, it was resolved in a meeting held by the Panchayat that the land donated by respondent No.6, being situated in the Centre of the Halqa and having access to road, electricity and water, was suitable for construction of the Panchayat Ghar as against the land of the petitioner which was situated on a Nallah and was prone to floods. This resolution was followed by resolutions dated 28thApril, 2015, and September, 2015, which approved the earlier resolution of January, 2015. Subsequently, the Panchayat approached respondent No.4 for construction of the Panchayat Ghar on the l