Stamp Act | Agreements to Sell with Possession Clauses Are Conveyances and Must Be Stamped Separately: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Electronic Road Safety Monitoring Under Motor Vehicles Act    |     False Claims Shake Court's Trust in Legal Proceedings: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition for Premature Release After False Statements on Imprisonment Duration    |     Executive Instructions Cannot Supplant Statutory Notifications: Bombay High Court Holds on Environmental Clearances    |     Illegal Mining Is Not a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Arrest of MLA Surender Panwar    |     Customers Liable Under Section 370(A) IPC if They Knew Victims Were Trafficked: Telangana High Court    |     Literal Interpretation of Taxing Statute Cannot Frustrate The Legislative Intent To Promote Infrastructure Development: Calcutta High Court    |     Medical Evidence Reveals One Child Died 13 Hours After Accused’s Rescue: Kerala High Court Acquits Mother Convicted of Killing Her Children    |     Non-compliance with interim maintenance order cannot bar divorce proceedings: Orissa High Court    |     DNA Evidence Cannot Be the Sole Basis for Conviction Without Proper Chain of Custody: Bombay High Court Quashes Conviction in POCSO and Rape Case    |     Force Majeure Cannot Be Invoked Without Timely Notice: Madras High Court    |     Non-payment of Compensation for Over Four Decades Shocks Judicial Conscience: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Compensation Recalculation for 42-Year    |     Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Cement Workers, Grants Full Back Wages to Wrongfully Retired Workmen    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Tamil Nadu Ex-Minister V. Senthil Balaji in Corruption and Money Laundering Case    |     Courts Can Award Maintenance More Than Claimed Based on Income: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Maintenance    |     Mere Possession of Child Pornography with Intent Can Trigger POCSO Offences, Even Without Transmission: Supreme Court    |     Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Taxation Law | Issuing Notices to a Dead Person is a Fundamental Jurisdictional Error: Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Proceedings    |     Common Intention Can Be Inferred from the Conduct of the Accused Moments Before the Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Quashes All Pending Cases in Matrimonial Dispute    |    

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

26 September 2024 8:54 PM

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

Similar News