Back
2015 Supreme(J&K) 223
JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Bansi Lal Bhat, J.
Kartar Singh and ors. - Appellant
Versus
State and ors. - Resopndent
OWP No. 558 of 2012
MP Nos. 562 of 2014, 759 of 2012, 2258 of 2013 & 401 of 2013
Decided On : 28-07-2015
For Petitioner (s):Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate.
For Respondent(s):Mr. Faraz Iqbal, Dy AG. Ms. Aruna Thakur, Advocate.
The court emphasized the importance of considering safety, economic impact, and technical feasibility in determining the alignment of road construction projects under NABARD.
Headnote:
ROAD CONSTRUCTION - NABARD Project - [NABARD Act, Section 4(1)(a), Section 6(1)(b)] - The court discussed the approved survey for the construction of the road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chunthan under NABARD-RIDF-XV. The respondents changed the alignment of the road, citing technical feasibility and public interest. The court considered the safety of road users, economic impact on the local community, and the technical feasibility assessed by engineering experts. The petitioners' claim for construction of the road through Chunthan was dismissed as the court found no merit in the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought relief for the construction of a road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chunthan under NABARD, claiming that the village Chuthan was not connected with a motor-able road and faced difficulties due to its geographical location.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the change in alignment of the road was necessitated by safety concerns, economic impact, and technical feasibility, and dismissed the petition along with connected MPs.
Issues: The main issue was the change in alignment of the road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chunthan, and the petitioners' claim for construction of the road through Chunthan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the safety of road users, economic impact on the local community, and technical feasibility assessed by engineering experts were crucial in determining the change in alignment of the road.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and interim directions were vacated.
1. The following reliefs are claimed in this writ petition:
(i) Writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to construct the road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chunthan under NABARD.
(ii) Writ of certiorari quashing the decision, if any, made or taken by any of the respondents regarding the change of alignment of the said road.
(iii) Writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from constructing the Senabati to Gujrara road at OKM from Senabati itself.
2. The case set up by petitioners belonging to village Chuthan, Tehsil Banihal, District Ramban is that village Chuthan falling in Block Ramsoo/Ukhral of Tehsil Banihal is the last village in the far-flung area not connected with a motor-able road. It is averred in the petition that village Chuthan, being surrounded by hills, remains cut-off during winter season. The villagers consisting of about 100 families are said to be facing lot of difficulties. The adjoining village Halla also consists of about 100 families. It is further averred in the writ petition that in view of the geographical location of the village and lack of motorable road facility, government decided to construct a road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chuthan under NABARD-RIDF-XV. The road is said to have been already constructed upto Senabati. Distance from Senabati to Chunthan is about two kilometers whereas from Chunthan to Gujrara, the distance is five kilometers. Thus, the proposed road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chunthan would have road length of about seven kilometers. It is further averred in the petition that the residents of Chunthan and Halla mainly depend on agriculture and rearing of cattle. In summer, the villagers shift their residence to pastures in hills abutting the famous Chamunda Mata Sharwa Dhar Hill lying across the river flowing alongside village Chunthan. Since the villagers have to cross the river, it was decided to construct a bridge and road from Senabati to Gujrara via Chunthan. It is further averred in the petition that apart from the above, village Chunthan was brought under the State Tourism Policy to attract tourists for which a motorable road was essential. Besides annual pilgrimage of Chamunda Mata from May to October passes through the village Chunthan and the successive governments had decided to provide road connectivity for the benefits of the yatris. It is further averred in the petition that the survey conducted for construction of the proposed Senabati to Gujrara road via Chunthan was approved by the respondent No. 1. Even foundation stone was laid for construction of the afore-said road, for which tenders were invited for two portions in kilometer first. It is averred that the work was allotted to contractors and the aforesaid two portions were completed. However, black topping has not been done. It is further averred that respondent No. 4 had issued NIT dated 09.01.2010 in respect of two more portions of the road. The work was allotted to contractors and the same has been executed. However, black topping has not been done so far. Respondent No. 4 is said to have issued NITs in respect of second, third and fourth kilometers for which work was allotted to contractors and the same stands executed. However, black topping has not been done. It is further averred that the respondents have decided not to complete the road as one-Omkar Singh had raised some objection which was used as an excuse for not constructing the road as per the approved survey. Subsequently, the aforesaid Omkar Singh gave his consent for construction of road through his land. However, respondents 4 and 5 have decided to stop the work beyond RD 500 second kilometer and instead decided to construct the Senabati-Gujrara road from RD 0 first kilometer i.e. from Senabati itself and not via Chunthan. It is alleged that the change of alignment has been effected contrary to the approval granted by respondent No. 1 and respondents could not be permitted to change the alignment in mid-way and abandon cons
