IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers

27 September 2024 9:41 AM

By: Deepak Kumar


High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in the case of Welfare Committee Naugran Prithipur Sehora and Kotli Mian Fateh v. Union of India and Others (WP(C)PIL No.10/2023), issued a significant ruling addressing the lack of safe passage for villagers impacted by the construction of the Jammu Ring Road. The court directed the respondents, including the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), to construct an overhead bridge or underpass to alleviate the severe inconvenience faced by villagers in crossing the highway, setting a key precedent for public infrastructure cases.

The case arose after the Welfare Committee, representing the residents of Villages Naugran, Prithipur, Sehora, and Kotli Mian Fateh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking construction of service lanes and crossing lanes beneath the Ring Road. The villagers argued that the road’s construction had created significant difficulties, including blocking access to homes, agricultural lands, and essential public spaces like the cremation ground. The villagers also raised concerns about water stagnation during the rainy season and the lack of irrigation channels due to the road's construction.

The primary legal issue was whether the failure to provide adequate infrastructure (such as underpasses or bridges) beneath the Ring Road violated the rights of the villagers to safe access and whether the respondents were obligated to restore irrigation channels obstructed by the road construction.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondents had neglected their duty, leaving villagers exposed to dangerous situations while crossing the road. The petitioners emphasized that urgent steps were needed to avoid a "death trap," especially given the high speed of vehicles on the Ring Road.

The respondents, represented by the NHAI, contended that they had already provided underpasses and service lanes at other locations and that the work was ongoing in some areas. However, the Court appointed a commissioner to assess the situation on the ground.

The Court, relying on the Commissioner's report, noted that "villagers in one voice stated acute hardships in crossing the Highway where speedy vehicles pass frequently", and expressed concerns about the lack of basic provisions for safe crossing. The report confirmed that water channels were blocked, and access to vital services had been disrupted.

The Court observed that while the NHAI had taken steps in some areas, the lack of attention to these particular villages was causing severe inconvenience. Notably, the report highlighted the absence of an overhead bridge or underpass, which had been provided at other locations like Sehora and Kotli Mian Fateh.

Based on these findings, the Court directed the NHAI to take immediate steps to construct an overhead bridge or underpass to facilitate safe passage. The Court further ordered the restoration of irrigation channels and measures to prevent water stagnation during the rainy season.

In this landmark decision, the High Court has emphasized the necessity of balancing public infrastructure projects with the safety and convenience of local populations. By mandating the construction of safe crossings and restoration of vital irrigation channels, the Court has set an important precedent in safeguarding the rights of affected communities.

Date of Decision: 25th September 2024

Welfare Committee Naugran Prithipur Sehora and Kotli Mian Fateh v. Union of India and Others

Latest Legal News