Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Inhabitants Of Village Gundi vs State Of J&K & Others on 3 May, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
OWP No. 1341/2016
Pronounced on: 03.05.2021
Inhabitants of Village Gundi .... Petitioner (s)
Gujran Patti Batlan
Through:- Mr. Mohammad Salim Mir,
Advocate
V/s
State of J&K & others .....Respondent(s)
Through:- Mr. M. A Chashoo,, AAG
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
01. Petitioners through the medium of this petition seek a direction to the
respondents to complete the construction of the road from Batpora to
Batlan as per communication dated 02.02.2013 issued by the Executive
Engineer Special Sub-Division, Tangdar with a further direction to the
respondents not to change the alignment of the road from Batpora to Batlan
and take action against the officials of the State, who are trying to change
the alignment of the road.
02. According to the petitioners, the Department of Roads and Buildings
(R&B) issued a communication dated 02.02.2013 for construction of road
from Village Batpora to Karhama viz. Batlan. The inhabitants of the village
also approached the Deputy Commissioner, Kupwara with a representation
seeking directions to construct the road through Patti Batlan. It was
submitted that as the population of Batlan consisting of 500 souls and the
Department was trying to cut off the Patti Batlan and change the location
of the road alignment via Batlan.
03. It is also contended that earlier also residents of Patti Batlan Village
Gujran has sought direction to the respondents in OWP No. 1353/2015 to
take action against the persons who have changed the alignment of the road
and this petition was disposed of by the Court directing that in case the
landed property of the petitioners is required for the public purpose, the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act shall be followed.
04. The inhabitants of the village again submitted a resolution to the then
Hon'ble Chief Minister of erstwhile State of J&K on behalf of village Patti
Batlan that the department was trying to shift the alignment of the road
which is far away from Patti Batlan and submitted that the as per the
communication, alignment of the road is from Batpora to Karhama via
Batlan and by changing the alignment, the residential houses, agriculture
land, trees, and water spring may be damaged by the construction. Since
the representation of the petitioners was not considered they have
approached this Court through the present petition.
05. The respondents in their objections submit that this petition has been
filed only on the basis of apprehension. The answering respondents have no
plan to change the alignment of the road project which has been approved
by the Central Government. It is categorically stated that the respondents
are not trying to cutoff Patti Batlan road or change the road alignment via
Batlan. In fact in para 5 of the objections, it is clearly stated that the
respondents are constructing the road strictly as per the approved Detailed
Project Report. Para 5 of the objections for reference is reproduced below:
"05.Contents of Para 5 are denied for want of knowledge.
However, it is submitted that the department is not
trying to cut off the patti Batlian and to change any location of
the road alignment via Batlia. The respondent department is
construction the road strictly as per approved detail project
(DPR) approved by the competent authority. And also in so far
as directions of the Deputy Commissioner Kupwara are
concerned those have also been taken into consideration. It is
submitted that the writ petition is based on the apprehension as
stated herein above and therefore has no merit.
The apprehensions raised in the para regarding gloss to
houses, agricultural land and trees are unfounded."
06. Since construction of the road was being undertaken strictly in
accordance with the approved DPR, but some people were trying to
obstruct the men and machinery in site and caused hindrance in the
development of the project, therefore Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karnah
had issued a direction to the Station House Officer, Police Station Karnah
for providing police protection to PWD Department and maintenance of
law and order. The categoric stand of the respondents is that the
construction of road as per DPR passes through the State land and the same
has been certified by the revenue authorities. There is no rebuttal to this
averment nor anything has been brought on record to suggest otherwise.
The construction of road, thus, being as per the Detailed Project Report and
therefore, prayer of the petitioner is to be rejected.
07. So far as the prayer of the petitioner that the respondents be directed
to complete the construction of the road from Batpora to Batlan at the first
instance, the same cannot be granted as it is the domain of the
respondents/authorities to access the requirement and construct the road as
per administrative exigencies as they have the expertise for the same. The
same cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction especially when it
involves public purpose.
08. The development of the road is for public purpose and the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case titled, Pratibha Nema and others v/s State of M.P
and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3140 has held that:
"When no prejudice has been demonstrated nor could be
reasonably inferred, it would be unjust and inappropriate to
strike down the notification under Section 4(1) on the basis of
a nebulous plea, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226. Even assuming that there is some ambiguity in
particularizing the public purpose and the possibility of doubt
cannot be ruled out, the Constitutional Courts in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 or 136 should not, as a matter of
course, deal a lethal blow to the entire proceedings based on
the theoretical or hypothetical grievance of the petitioner."
09. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in this
petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Sindhu Sharma)
Judge
JAMMU
03.05.2021
SUNIL-II
Whether the judgment is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the judgment is reportable : Yes/No
