Back
2014 Supreme(J&K) 338
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.
Manzoor Hussain & Ors. -Appellant
Versus
State of J&K & Ors. -Resopndent
OWP No. 1411-2013, CMA No. 1936-2013, c-w OWP No. 501-2013, CMA Nos. 672-2013 & D-995-2013
Decided On : 19-09-2014
Rahul Bharti, M.A. Bhat, H.A. Siddiqui, S.K. Shukla, L.K. Sharma.
The technical feasibility report of experts and the approval of the alignment by the Central Government were crucial in determining the validity of the road alignment and land acquisition for public purpose.
Headnote:
Alignment - Land Acquisition - [Land Acquisition Act] - The court considered the alignment for the road under the PMGSY Scheme and the acquisition of land for public purpose. It emphasized the technical feasibility report of experts and the approval of the alignment by the Central Government. The court found that the petitioners had not challenged the notification under Section 4(1) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in the first instance, and in the absence of allegations of discrimination, recurrent litigation was not permitted to defeat the development plan providing connectivity to remote villages. The court dismissed the petitions and connected CMP(s).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought mandamus to adhere to the project for the construction of a road and prohibition from constructing the road through agricultural land. They alleged that the alignment of the road was shifted to benefit certain individuals to the detriment of public interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alignment for the road had been approved by the Central Government based on the technical feasibility report of experts. It noted that the petitioners had not challenged the notification under the Land Acquisition Act and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: The issues involved the alignment of the road under the PMGSY Scheme, the acquisition of land for public purpose, and the petitioners' challenge to the change in alignment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the approval of the alignment by the Central Government, the lack of challenge to the notification under the Land Acquisition Act, and the absence of discrimination allegations. It held that recurrent litigation was not permitted to defeat the development plan providing connectivity to remote villages.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and connected CMP(s), finding no merit in the petitions.
2. In OWP No. 501/2013 following reliefs have been claimed:-
"Mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly adhere to the project taken under Core Network New Connectivity Priority List (CNCPL) issued by Chief Executive Officer JKRRDA (respondent No. 1) executed through PMGSY Agency for the construction of road from Km 10th of T 04 to Upper Ghullota; and for the issuance of
Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from constructing road at any other point except as provided in the project as well as in the work order i.e. from point, km 10th of T 04 (Bhimber Gali to Mendhar) to Upper Glota and for the issuance of-
Writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from constructing the road through agricultural land (Paddy Crop Land) in violation of Standing orders and circulars issued by the Govt. from time to time and for the issuance of-
Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to conduct an in depth enquiry into the circumstances under which the alignment of the road project being shifted for conferring illegal benefits to Respondent No. 12 and 13 and pushing the officers for such gross violation and share misuse of public money and by putting additional burden on Govt. Exchequer."
3. Adverting to facts, be it seen that petitioners 1 to 3 are residents of Village Kotian while petitioner No.4 is resident of village Ari Tehsil Mendhar District Poonch. Their case is that under package no. 11-80 phase 7 stage 1, road was to be constructed from T 04 to Gulhotta. Upper under Core Network New Connectivity Priority List (CNCPL). T 04 is stated to be the code name given to existing road from Bhimber Gali (BG) to Mendhar. According to petitioners, road was to be constructed from a point km 10th of T 04 to Upper Gulhotta so as to provide connectivity to maximum possible population based on survey conducted by Experts under PMGSY Programme. According to petitioners this road would benefit more than three thousand inhabitants of Upper Kotan, Upper Kandi, Upper Gulhotta and a number of small hamlets/habitations. Respondent No. 4-Anwar Hussain Shah, Additional District Development Commissioner, Poonch stated to be a local resident, is alleged to have prevailed upon respondents 5 to 7 to change the alignment of the road and instead of starting the road from KM 10th of T 04, site plan was prepared to start construction of the road from a point which is 2 km away from Mendhar city to pass through areas having scant population and would benefit respondent No. 12-Sarfaraz Choudhary posted as Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) in PMGSY Wing of the PWD who is said to have installed a stone-crusher at Mohalla Seri. It is, therefore, alleged that the alignment of road was shifted to provide connectivity to the stone-crusher of respondents No. 12 to the detriment of public interest Petitioners are thus, aggrieved of change of alignment of the road.
4. Respondents 1, 2 and 5 to 7 are the State and Engineers of PMGSY programme. They have contested the petition on the ground that final award has been passed by the Revenue Authorities after following all the legal formalities which has not been challenged by the petitioners. It is pleaded that petitioners had earlier filed OWP No. 1114/2012 and the respondents have been directed by this Court to proceed in the matter strictly in accordance with rules and policy of Land Acquisition Act (for brevity `Act'). It is further pleaded that after proper survey in the year 2008 NRRDA, Government of India sanctioned construction of road from km 10th to T-04 to Gulhotta Upper Package No. JK11-80, length 6.0 kms taking off from village Kotan. The target habitation of this Scheme was Gulhotta Upper with village Kotan and Ari as incidental habitations. Land was accordingly acquired project was implemented and contract was awarded. It is pleaded that the petitioners hav
