SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by seven residents of Chewa-Ullar village in Tral, Pulwama, who had sought to halt the construction of a link road allegedly passing over an irrigation canal. The petitioners claimed that the road project was undertaken to benefit certain influential individuals and would cause irreversible damage to agricultural land and increase flood vulnerability. However, the court ruled that the road construction was carried out in the public interest and backed by technical assessments, and thus outside the scope of judicial interference.
The petitioners had approached the court demanding a writ of mandamus to stop construction of the road over survey numbers 866, 915, and 936, which, according to them, are recorded as irrigation canal and Daraabpashi (drainage channel) in revenue records. They also sought removal of encroachments on the irrigation channel and protection of the canal’s original structure. Their primary concern was that the new road project would obstruct irrigation water flow, negatively impacting agricultural productivity in the village.
Through their counsel, the petitioners argued that instead of acting on public grievances to remove encroachments from the canal, the authorities began construction over it in violation of their statutory duties. They claimed that the road was deliberately aligned to pass through low-value land owned by powerful individuals to artificially inflate its market worth. They cited Section 83 of the J&K Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010, which bars any obstruction or encroachment on irrigation waterways, as the legal basis for their petition.
The respondents, including the Revenue and Rural Development Departments, contested these allegations and submitted that the road, referred to as the Pushar Road, was laid after proper demarcation and in response to demands from the local Welfare Committee. They argued that the road connects multiple habitations and farmlands, and care had been taken to ensure the passage of irrigation water through proper planning and engineering. According to their submissions, the land used for the road includes a Gair Mumkin Darrah (non-arable drain), and no significant damage to irrigation infrastructure had occurred.
It was further submitted by the authorities that the land occupied by the petitioners was retrieved during a lawful eviction drive and that the development project was intended to improve rural connectivity and support local farmers by providing easier access to markets. The Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department also clarified that the disputed water channel is a community-managed zamindari khul and not under their jurisdiction, thereby absolving the department of any responsibility in the matter.
After hearing both sides and examining the material on record, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal concluded that the construction of the road had been preceded by proper administrative and technical processes and was not shown to be arbitrary, malicious, or illegal. The court emphasised that decisions regarding road alignment and infrastructure development fall within the technical domain of the concerned authorities and cannot be interfered with by courts unless they are patently irrational or violate statutory provisions.
The judge cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Union of India vs D Kushala Shetty and G Narsing Rao vs NHAI, to reiterate the limited scope of judicial review in infrastructure and technical planning matters. Referring to the Kerala High Court’s view in G. Whabuddin vs. State of Kerala, the court highlighted that delays in such public interest projects not only burden the exchequer but also deprive communities of much-needed infrastructure.
The court noted that there was no credible evidence to support the petitioners’ claim that the project was designed to benefit a select few or that irrigation rights were being harmed. It also observed that the petitioners had themselves been in unauthorised occupation of parts of the disputed land, and the authorities had lawfully acted to retrieve it.
Finding no irregularity in the planning or execution of the road project and given the absence of demonstrable malafide intent, the court held that the matter did not warrant further judicial intervention. As the primary relief sought by the petitioners had already been rendered infructuous by the progress of the project, the writ petition was dismissed along with all pending applications.
