SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld a decree directing the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) authorities to pay Rs 7.2 lakh in compensation to a Ramban resident whose house was damaged following road construction work, holding that the authorities failed to rebut the evidence attributing the damage to road cutting and the failure of a protective wall.
Justice Shahzad Azeem dismissed a civil first appeal filed by the Commissioner Secretary, PMGSY, the Executive Engineer of PMGSY Division Batote and the Assistant Executive Engineer of PMGSY Sub-Division Ramban against a judgment delivered by the Principal District Judge, Ramban, on August 30, 2022.
The trial court had awarded Mohd Iqbal, a resident of Ghari in Rajgarh tehsil, Rs 7.2 lakh in damages, along with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit until realisation.
In its judgment pronounced on October 9, 2026, the High Court found no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings and affirmed the compensation decree.
The case arose from damage to Iqbal’s double-storey house situated on land bearing Survey No. 611 near the 25-kilometre point of the Karol-Kumate road in village Kumate, Rajgarh tehsil of Ramban district.
According to the plaint, earth cutting undertaken for the road had raised concerns about the risk of a landslide affecting the house. Iqbal alleged that the department constructed a protective wall using substandard material and without adhering to proper construction standards, leaving it unable to retain the soil.
He claimed that the wall gave way in March 2014 following rainfall, resulting in damage to the house and cracks in its structure.
The PMGSY authorities denied liability, arguing that Rs 1.75 lakh had already been paid for damage to the earlier house. They maintained that a breast wall behind the road had suffered partial damage due to rainfall in 2014 and was repaired promptly.
The authorities further contended that Iqbal had demolished the old house and constructed a new multi-storey building at the same location without technical approval or professional advice. They argued that any subsequent damage resulted from his own negligence rather than departmental wrongdoing.
The trial court framed two issues concerning Iqbal’s ownership and possession of the property and whether the damage had been caused by the defendants during construction of the Karol-Kumate road, resulting in the claimed loss of Rs 7.2 lakh.
After examining the evidence, the trial court decided both issues in Iqbal’s favour. It noted that the defendants had neither seriously disputed his ownership nor produced evidence to establish their defence on the cause of the damage, despite being given an opportunity to do so.
Before the High Court, the government authorities argued that the trial court had failed to frame separate issues on the alleged use of substandard material in the protective wall and Iqbal’s decision to reconstruct the house without technical approval. They sought interference with the decree on the ground that these questions had not been specifically addressed.
Rejecting the argument, Justice Azeem observed that the authorities had participated in the trial without seeking additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). They had also failed to put the relevant questions to the plaintiff’s witnesses during cross-examination.
The court held that the omission to frame a more specific issue does not automatically invalidate a trial when the parties understand the rival claims and have had an opportunity to present their evidence. Prejudice, rather than the mere absence of a separately worded issue, is the relevant consideration, it observed.
The judgment noted that Iqbal had examined four witnesses. His own testimony linked the damage to road cutting and the failure of the protective wall, while another witness stated that the house would not have been damaged had the department constructed a proper wall.
A Patwari from Kumate proved Iqbal’s ownership and possession of the property. Another witness, Mohd Ayuob, who had served as an Assistant Executive Engineer in PMGSY and assessed the damage, testified that the house had developed cracks and attributed the damage to road cutting.
The High Court observed that the defendants had the opportunity to challenge this evidence by questioning the witnesses about the quality of the wall and the circumstances in which the new house had been constructed. Their failure to do so could not be used to secure another opportunity to contest the case at the appellate stage.
Justice Azeem also rejected the argument that the matter should be remitted to the trial court for framing additional issues. The court held that the provisions governing the framing of additional issues and the referral of questions for findings by a trial court could not be invoked merely because a party wished to reopen a defence it had failed to pursue during the trial.
On the authorities’ claim that Rs 1.75 lakh had already been paid, the High Court noted that the alleged payment had not been established through evidence. It also found that the assessment supporting the Rs 7.2 lakh compensation award had not been effectively challenged during cross-examination, and the defendants had produced no alternative valuation.
Reappraising the evidence, the court concluded that the findings on ownership and the cause of the damage were supported by the record. It held that the evidence, which remained unchallenged on material points and was not countered by defence evidence, supported the conclusion that road cutting and the failure of the protective wall had caused the damage.
The High Court accordingly affirmed the judgment and decree dated August 30, 2022, and dismissed the PMGSY authorities’ appeal, RFA No. 41/2023. It made no order as to costs and directed that the record be returned to the court below.
The judgment was reserved on October 1, 2026, and pronounced at Jammu on October 9, 2026.
