##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CJ Court

Case No. LPA No. 276/2025 in

OWP No. 2416/2018

CM No. 7239/2025

Reserved on: 22.12.2025

Pronounced on: 30.12.2025

Uploaded on: 30.12.2025

Whether the operative part or full judgment

is pronounced: Full.

National Highways Authority of

India, G-5 and G-6, Sector No. 10,

Dwarka, New Delhi through its

Project Director, National

Highways Authority of India, PIU-

Ramban, Ramban. …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Vipan Gandotra, Advocate

Vs

1. Kushlaya Devi W/o Chuni Lal

R/o Dhalwas, Tehsil & District

Ramban. .…. Contesting Respondent

2. Union Territory of Jammu and

Kashmir Through

Commissioner/Secretary, Revenue

Department, Civil Secretariat, J&K

Jammu/Srinagar.

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ramban.

4. Additional Deputy Commissioner,

Ramban.

5. Gammon India Pvt. Ltd. C/o

General Manager, Head Office,

Gammon House, Veer Savarkar

Marg Prabhadevi, Mumbai.

6. Union of India Through

Commissioner/Secretary, Ministry of

Roads, Transport and Highways

Transport Bhawan, Parliament

Street New Delhi.

…….Performa Respondent(s)

Through:

LPA No. 276/2025 in OWP No. 2416/2018 Page 1 of 6

Coram: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

(Rajnesh Oswal-J)

1. The appellant, being aggrieved of the judgment dated 14.08.2025

rendered by the learned Writ Court in OWP No. 2416/2018, whereby the

appellant has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,91,100/- along

with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition

till its actual realization, has assailed the same through the medium of

instant intra court appeal only on the ground that the learned Writ Court

has wrongly placed reliance upon the report dated 27.10.2022, as in the

said report, the Committee of Officers had stated that the damage was not

attributable to the appellant. This is the only ground urged by the

appellant for challenging the judgment impugned in this appeal.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that respondent No.

1 filed a writ petition seeking a direction to respondent No. 3 to conduct

an inquiry and assess the damage caused to her property. The property,

measuring 5 Kanals and 17 Marlas (Survey No. 924) in Village Dhalwas,

Ramban, allegedly sustained damage due to the actions of respondent

No. 5. Specifically, the petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No.

5 to clear culverts and drains and remove construction debris illegally

dumped on her land. These reliefs were sought on the ground that illegal

dumping and blockage of the drainage systems caused a direct flow of

mountain water onto her un-acquired land, damaging five shops she had

constructed there. She further claimed to have made a representation to

respondent No. 4 to direct respondent No. 5 to stop illegal dumping and

LPA No. 276/2025 Page 2 of 6

to open the culverts and drains so that the water causing damage to her

land stops and further to assess the damages caused to her land.

3. The appellant came up with the response, thereby asserting that the land

measuring 10 Kanal 19 Marlas came to be acquired for the appellant and

rest of the land measuring 5 Kanal 17 Marlas remained with the

respondent No. 1. The appellant categorically denied having dumped any

soil or stones on the un-acquired portion of the land, nor were any

culverts or drains blocked. Furthermore, the appellant maintained that

respondent No. 1's un-acquired land was never utilized for construction.

Notably, the appellant contended that the respondent No.1 raised her

structures along the road in violation of the required 75-foot setback from

the centre line. Consequently, the appellant denied that any damage was

caused to the respondent's property.

4. Respondent No. 5, in turn, in its response stated that the land measuring

10 Kanal 19 Marla was acquired after private negotiation and in terms of

a final award dated 08.08.2017. It was further stated that pursuant to

interim order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Writ Court, the

report was sought from Tehsildar