Inhabitants Of Village Gundi Gujran Patti Batlan vs State Of J&K And Others

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.â€​

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.

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.

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.â€​

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, there is no merit in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.