SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

13 September 2026 1:38 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

Latest Legal News