Latter patent appeal Draft for High court
This post is about Legal draft for latter patent appeal to be filed in Jammu and kashmir high court this is draft to help Young lawyers , the names of the parties are changed by Me.
The LPA will start form Page With Index, memo of parties, the urgency memo, List of dates and event, then the LPA, then affidavit, with certificate of advocate, then Annexures and Vakaltnama in sequence wise, interim application with affidavit and if I missing something which is to be added also.
BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF J & K AT Udhampur
(LPA no.____/2025)
Provision :The instant appeal is filed under Clause 12 of Letter Patents Appeal and the matter belongs to District jammu
IN THE MATTER OF: –
Kiran devi, Aged 95 Years
W/O and Address
And Ors parties names
……………Appellant
V/S
Mr. Singh, Aged 66 Years
&
U.T of Jammu and Kashmir,
Through its commissioner / Secretary, Rural and other parties name
………………Respondents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Letters patent appeal for quashing order dated 1-08-2025 and 9-09-2024 passed by learned single judge in case titled Mr singh and Ors. Vs Ut of J&K and Ors. In WPC no. 3/2024/
May it please your Honour
The appellant most respectfully submits as under
That the appellants are aggrieved of the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in CM No. 8/2025 in WPC No. 3/2024 in which application for impleadment was rejected in order dated 1-08-2025and are aggrieved of the order dated 09-09-2024 in which interim order against the state is passed for not proceeding against the land owner of the khasra no. as mentioned in the petition except in due coarse of law. A certified copy of order dated 1-08-2025 and order dated 09-09-2024 is annexed herein as annexure I, II.
BRIEF FACTS
1. That in the year 2020–21, a tractor road from Khoon Bridge to Mohalla Kalyal was duly sanctioned under the MGNREGA Scheme with an expenditure of ₹2,67,875/- incurred by the Rural Development Department and the said road was constructed with the consent, contribution, and full cooperation of all the village residents including the present appellants and the writ petitioner below. That the said tractor road traverses the proprietary land of multiple owners including some of the present appellants and the writ petitioner below and became the lifeline of the village, providing the only motorable access to Mohalla Kalyal for transport of goods, emergency movement, and day-to-day use by the residents.
2.That the entire project was executed smoothly and transparently and no objection was ever raised by any villager including the writ petitioner at any stage of construction or even after completion of the said road. That the villagers including the appellants voluntarily permitted the use of their proprietary land for this public purpose and the road was being used without hindrance for a considerable time after its completion.
3. That the appellants are also co-sharers in some portions of the land over which the road passes and their consent was also taken at the time of construction. That it is also pertinent to mention that the tractor road passes in front of the house of the writ petitioner and up to his house no objection has ever been raised by him, but strangely, only that portion of the road which passes beyond his house and proceeds further towards Mohalla Kalyal has been blocked by him, thereby causing serious hardship to the appellants and other residents of Mohalla Kalyal.
That after a considerable time from the completion of the road, relations between the writ petitioner and the appellants became strained and it was only thereafter that the writ petitioner deliberately damaged, ploughed, and blocked the portion of the tractor road beyond his house, thereby completely obstructing vehicular access to Mohalla Kalyal. That due to this illegal obstruction, the entire village community including the appellants suffered grave hardship and even urgent medical access for appellant Krishna Devi aged about 95 years was obstructed.
4.That the writ petitioner had earlier availed the remedy of filing a civil suit before the Learned Court of Munsiff Majalta challenging the legality of the tractor road on the ground that it passed through his proprietary land and seeking to restrain its use. That in the said suit, the Learned Munsiff initially granted a status quo order but after hearing the parties the interim order was modified specifically excluding the tractor road from its operation thereby permitting its use. That the writ petitioner thereafter abandoned the civil proceedings and stopped appearing before the court as a result of which the suit came to be dismissed for default, thereby signifying tacit acceptance of the legality of the tractor road.
5.That pursuant to the proceedings in the court of the Learned Munsiff Majalta, a spot inspection was directed to be carried out and the Tehsildar Majalta submitted a detailed report to the said court. That in the said report it was categorically recorded that a tractor road exists in Khasra No. 1119 of village Amara, that the road was constructed by the Rural Development Department in 2020–21 under MGNREGA, that it commences from Dhar Road near Khoon Bridge and extends towards Kalyal Mohalla up to Chaunda Mata Temple, that impressions of the tractor road were clearly visible despite the ploughing and blocking done by the writ petitioner, that vehicles were getting stuck at the point where the writ petitioner had ploughed the road, that the road passes through the proprietary land of multiple owners including the petitioner and the appellants but no one ever objected to its construction, and that if every landholder ploughed his portion of land there would be no motorable access left for the mohalla at all. That the Tehsildar’s report was corroborated by statements of the Block Development Officer, Patwari, Naib Tehsildar, Lambardar, Chowkidar and other local residents and even by Google imagery annexed with the report submitted to munisff court by Tehsildar showing the existence of the tractor road.
6.That despite having failed in the civil court proceedings and despite the categorical findings of the Tehsildar’s report prepared on the orders of the Learned Munsiff Majalta, the writ petitioner again approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing WPC No. 913 of 2024 but did not disclose the earlier civil suit proceedings or the Tehsildar’s report, thereby concealing material facts and misguiding the Hon’ble Court. That on the very first date of hearing no interim order was granted by the Hon’ble High Court but the conduct of the writ petitioner clearly shows that he was acting in concert and hand in glove with some of the official respondents. That when respondent no. 7 filed his objections before the Hon’ble Court, he stated that as per the revenue record, the land had not been formally acquired and the other official respondents were yet to file their reply. That thereafter, the Hon’ble Court on 09.09.2024 passed an order that “in the meantime, the respondents shall not proceed against the land owners of the Khasra number as mentioned in the petition except in due course of law.”
7.That inspired by the said interim order, the writ petitioner continued to obstruct the road and the appellants, being directly affected residents, approached the local authorities and submitted multiple applications requesting that the due course of law be followed and road access be restored. That however the authorities were of the view that since the matter was sub judice and there was a specific interim order of the Hon’ble High Court, they could not take any action to restore the road. That due to this inaction, the appellants and other villagers were left without any motorable path and their houses became virtually inaccessible. That during the rainy season, the situation worsened as the damaged road turned into a hazard making even pedestrian movement difficult. That appellant Krishna Devi, aged about 95 years, was particularly affected as she was unable to access medical facilities due to the road being blocked.
8. That in these circumstances, the appellants were compelled to file an application for impleadment before the Hon’ble High Court in the said writ petition specifically pointing out that the writ petitioner had misled the Court by concealing the earlier civil suit and the Tehsildar’s report and that the interim order was being misused to deprive the entire village of its only access road. That the Learned Single Judge, however, by order dated 13.08.2025 dismissed the impleadment application holding that the appellants were neither necessary nor proper parties. That the appellants are seriously aggrieved by the impugned order as the tractor road in question is the only means of access to Mohalla Kalyal and its public character stands conclusively established by the Tehsildar’s report, revenue records, and statements of local officials and residents. That the continued obstruction caused by the writ petitioner has resulted in irreparable hardship to the appellants and other villagers and therefore the appellants have approached this Hon’ble Court seeking appropriate relief. A copy of impleadment application is annexed herein as Annexure III
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1That aggrieved of the passing of the impugned order dated 13.08.2025 by the Learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants’ application for impleadment, and aggrieved of the continuing obstruction of the only tractor road providing access to Mohalla Kalyal, the appellants have been left with no other efficacious remedy but to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present appeal, on the following, amongst other,
GROUNDS
1.That the appellants are necessary and proper parties and their presence is essential for complete adjudication. The tractor road in question was constructed in 2020–21 under the MGNREGA scheme with public expenditure amounting to ₹2,67,875/- and with the full consent, cooperation, and even contribution of the local villagers, including the appellants themselves. The road passes through proprietary lands of multiple co-sharers, including both the writ petitioner and the present appellants, and is the only motorable road that connects Mohalla Kalyal to the main road near Khoon Bridge. In law, a necessary party is one without whose presence no effective decree can be passed, and a proper party is one whose presence enables the Court to completely and effectively adjudicate upon the matter. The appellants are not strangers but are direct stakeholders in the road, and their exclusion renders the writ proceedings incomplete, one-sided, and unjust. It is well-settled law that impleadment must be allowed in order to avoid parallel proceedings and multiplicity of litigation. Forcing the appellants to file a separate writ petition would not only prolong the dispute but also result in conflicting findings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that all affected parties should be heard in the same lis to secure complete justice.
2.That the impugned order causes grave hardship and violates fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The tractor road is the only lifeline of Mohalla Kalyal and the sole means of vehicular access for all residents, including the appellants. Its obstruction has practically cut off the mohalla from the rest of the area. The Tehsildar’s spot inspection report — prepared under the orders of the Learned Munsiff Majalta — has confirmed that the road exists, was constructed by the Rural Development Department, and was subsequently ploughed and blocked by the writ petitioner, thereby rendering it unusable. The obstruction has caused extreme hardship particularly to appellant Krishna Devi, aged 95 years, who has been denied urgent medical access. The hardship becomes unbearable during rains when the road turns into a quagmire, leaving the mohalla virtually stranded. The impugned order, by rejecting impleadment, has perpetuated a situation that amounts to violation of the appellants’ right to life with dignity and freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 21. The law does not countenance a situation where an entire village is held hostage merely because one co-sharer has a grievance. A copy of tehsildar report is annexed herein as Annexure IV.
3.That the writ petitioner has misused process of law and suppressed material facts, thereby misleading the Hon’ble Court.The writ petitioner had already filed a civil suit before the Learned Munsiff Majalta challenging the legality of the road. The trial court, after considering the matter, modified the status quo order to exclude the tractor road, permitting its use. Thereafter, the writ petitioner abandoned the proceedings and allowed the suit to be dismissed for default — which amounts to tacit acceptance of the legality of the road. He also failed to disclose to the Hon’ble High Court the categorical findings of the Tehsildar’s report which confirmed the existence of the road, its public character, and the deliberate obstruction caused by him. And the petitioner procured an interim order dated 09.09.2024 restraining the respondents from proceeding against the land of certain Khasra numbers “except in due course of law,” and this interim order is now being misused as a weapon to deny road access to the entire mohalla. The principle of equity and clean hands mandates that a person who suppresses material facts cannot be permitted to take advantage of an interim order.
4.That even if the case of the writ petitioner is assumed to be correct, his grievance is purely compensable in monetary terms and cannot justify blocking of a public road. At the highest, the writ petitioner could have claimed compensation for use of his share of the land in accordance with law. His grievance does not justify extinguishing the only road to Mohalla Kalyal, a road created with public funds and used by the entire village. It is settled that where monetary compensation is an adequate remedy, injunctions causing public inconvenience must be refused. By rejecting the impleadment application, the Learned Single Judge has deprived the Hon’ble Court of an opportunity to weigh these considerations. The appellants have approached this Hon’ble Court precisely to prevent a situation where public infrastructure is rendered useless due to a purely private, compensable dispute.
5.That the impugned order is against public interest and frinterest and frustrates the very purpose of a welfare scheme.The tractor road was sanctioned and executed as a development project under MGNREGA, meant to provide connectivity and improve the quality of life of all residents. Blocking this road nullifies the objective of the scheme and results in wastage of public funds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where public projects and public rights are at stake, courts must adopt a liberal approach to impleadment and allow all stakeholders to be heard. The impugned order effectively gives a single co-sharer veto power over a public facility, which is contrary to constitutional values and administrative law principles. Allowing impleadment would have ensured that the Hon’ble Court had a complete and correct picture before it and could decide the matter in a way that protects both individual rights and public interest. A copy of Revenue record showing the appellant no. 1 and 3 as co- sharer, is annexed herein as annexure V
6.That Appellant No. 2 and Appellant No. 4 were already parties before the Learned Munsiff Majalta in the earlier civil proceedings, and their impleadment was vital to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Since these appellants had already been recognized as parties interested in the subject road in the earlier civil suit, their exclusion in the writ petition breaks the continuity of proceedings and deprives them of defending their established interest. It is settled law that multiplicity of proceedings should be avoided and that parties who were before the civil court should normally be impleaded in writ proceedings involving the same subject matter. Instead of compelling the appellants to file a separate writ petition — thereby multiplying litigation and burdening the courts — the learned Single Judge ought to have impleaded them to ensure a comprehensive and final adjudication. This Hon’ble Court has consistently encouraged consolidation of disputes rather than fragmentation, and the impugned order runs contrary to this settled legal policy. A copy of order passed by Munsiff Majalta is annexed herein as Annexure VI.
PRAYERS’-
In the light of the above submissions, the appellants respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
Allow the present appeal and set aside the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Learned Single Judge in WPC No. 913 of 2024, whereby the appellants’ application for impleadment was dismissed and Set aside the interim order dated 09-09-2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC no. 913/2024, where the state was directed not to proceed against the land owner
Direct impleadment of the appellants as party respondents in WPC No. 913 of 2024, being necessary and proper parties to the proceedings.
Pass such other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, to secure the ends of justice.
This was Draft of latter patent appeal for more stay with tacitlegal
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
- Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
- Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 Framework
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public Servants
