Petition challenging road construction dismissed
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 10: Refusing to intervene in technical or policy decisions, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed a writ petition filed by some residents of Chewa-Ullar village in Tral, Pulwama, who had challenged the construction of a link road over land recorded as an irrigation canal.
The petitioners had alleged that the project would destroy irrigation channels vital for agriculture and was being executed to benefit certain influential individuals.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while delivering the judgment in WP(C) No. 278/2023, ruled that there was no illegality or arbitrariness in the construction of the road and that the project was carried out in the larger public interest after due administrative and technical procedures were followed.
The petitioners, including Abdul Aziz Reshi, Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, and others, contended that the authorities were constructing a road on land identified under Survey Nos. 866, 915, and 936, which was originally recorded in the revenue records as irrigation canal (Khul) and “Daraabpashi.” They claimed that this action would block water flow essential for agricultural operations, leading to potential flooding and crop damage. They also accused the authorities of acting in collusion with local land mafias to artificially enhance the value of adjacent lands owned by influential individuals.
In response, the Revenue and Rural Development authorities argued that the road, referred to as Pushar Road, was part of a legitimate connectivity project intended to benefit villagers, improve access to farmlands, and facilitate the transport of agricultural produce. They asserted that irrigation flow would not be obstructed and that steps had been taken to ensure proper drainage.
The respondents (administration) clarified that land under Khasra No. 915 was used for road alignment only after evicting encroachers, including some of the petitioners themselves, as per statutory provisions under the Jammu and Kashmir Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010.
Justice Nargal, in a detailed 10-page verdict, noted that the project was undertaken after technical assessment and with the consent of local residents while the petitioners failed to provide any evidence of malafide intention or arbitrary action by the authorities.
He also cited several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, stressing that matters involving infrastructure and technical planning must be left to expert authorities unless there is clear evidence of illegality or irrationality.
“It is a settled principle of law that matters involving technical expertise and policy decisions are to be left to the domain of qualified authorities, and the Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, does not assume the role of an appellate authority over technical decisions, unless they are manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of constitutional or statutory mandates,” he observed.
With these observations, the High Court ruled that the primary main relief sought by the petitioners had already been substantially addressed and no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the litigation, the writ petition is therefore dismissed as infructuous, along with all connected applications.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
