Jammu & Kashmir High Court
National Highways Authority Of India vs Nazir Ahmed on 3 March, 2025
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar, Moksha Khajuria Kazmi
Sr. No. 09
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
LPA No. 12/2025 in
WP (C) No. 826/2024
1. National Highways Authority of India, .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
through Project Director, PIU-Ramban,
Sh. Parshotam Kumar Phonsa.
2. Union of India,
through Ministry of Road Transport & Highways,
New Delhi.
Through :- Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Advocate
v/s
1. Nazir Ahmed, .....Respondent(s)
S/o Habibullah Gattoo,
R/o Krawah, Banihal, District Ramban.
2. Sajad Ahmed Ganai,
S/o Ali Mohd. Ganai,
R/o Farwagan, Banihal, District Ramban.
Through :- Mr. Arshad Ahmed Malik, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE
ORDER
03.03.2025
(Sanjeev Kumar-J)
1. This intra-court appeal by the National Highways Authority of India is
directed against an order and judgment dated 24.12.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court [“the Writ Court”] in WP (C) No.
826/2024 titled Nazir Ahmed Vs. Union of India & Anr. whereby, the
Writ Court has allowed the writ petition of the respondents and issued
the following directions:
“7….. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and
analysed hereinabove, the instant petition is disposed of as under:
(i) The Deputy Commissioner shall offer a hearing to the
respondent no. 2 herein in respect of the quantum of damage
assessed by the committee in its report dated 09.08.2023
2 LPA No. 12/2025 in
WP (C) No. 826/2024within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this
order is produced by either of the parties and therefore within
two weeks have the damage assessed by the committee in its
report re-assessed while taking into consideration the stand of
the petitioner herein.
(ii) Upon such re-assessment, the respondent no. 2 herein shall
pay the said re-assessed amount of compensation to the
petitioner herein within four weeks’ time thereafter alongwith
interest at the rate of 6% P.A from the date of damage till its
payment.”
2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that
the appellant authority executed the construction work of NH44 at
Krawah Banihal District Ramban by use of heavy machinery. With a
view to constructing the road, the appellant authority resorted to earth
cutting in the area. As per the case setup by the writ petitioner, the earth
cutting which was resorted to by the appellant authority remained
unattended during winter season for a considerable period of time and as
a result whereof, the school building and the house of the respondents
suffered extensive damage, in that, it developed cracks because of the
rain water percolating from the catchment area due to melting of snow
etc.
3. The respondents approached the office of Deputy Commissioner,
Ramban and Police Station, Ramban with their grievance, whereupon the
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramban vide letter dated 20.03.2020
directed the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B) Division to furnish a
detailed report after making spot inspection. The Executive Engineer
concerned submitted his report on 06.08.2020, reporting therein that the
construction work of NH44 on the uphill side of area by way of Deep
Gulla Earth cutting and also by deploying heavy machinery and
3 LPA No. 12/2025 in
WP (C) No. 826/2024
thereafter keeping the site unattended during winter season has led to
drainage of rain/surface water downhill and has affected the structure of
the respondents.
4. In a nutshell, as per the opinion of the Executive Engineer concerned, the
damage to the structures of the respondents has occasioned due to the
surface cutting resorted to by the appellant authority in the process of
construction of NH44. It seems that with a view to verify the claim made
by the respondents, the Tehsildar also constituted a committee which
inter alia included representative of appellant authority as well.
Simultaneously, the appellant authority also sought a report from its
consultancy agency i.e. SMEC Private Ltd. The report of the committee
constituted by Tehsildar Banihal and the inspection report submitted by
the consultancy agency of the appellant authority have both confirmed
that the damage to the structures of the respondents are because of
construction of road by the appellant authority.
5. Relying upon the aforesaid two reports and the opinion of the Executive
Engineer concerned, the respondents approached the appellant authority
for compensation but the same was denied by the appellant authority on
the ground that the damage to the structures of the respondents, if any,
was not attributable to any act or omission of the appellant authority.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed WP (C) No. 826/2024 which
was contested by Respondent No. 2. The Writ Court, after having
considered the rival contentions and material on record, has allowed the
writ petition with the directions reproduced hereinabove vide its
judgment dated 24.12.2024. It is this judgment passed by the Writ Court
which is called in question before us in this appeal. The impugned
judgment is assailed by the appellants inter alia on the ground that the
4 LPA No. 12/2025 in
WP (C) No. 826/2024
appellant authority was never associated either by the committee
constituted by the Tehsildar or by the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B)
Division who initially conducted the inspection of the structures of
Respondent No. 1.
7. Mr. Sunny Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
authority submits that the Writ Court has erroneously recorded that the
appellant authority has accepted the report and the only question that
remains to be decided is the amount of compensation payable to the
respondents.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that
the judgment passed by the Writ Court is legally perfect and
unquestionable. Apart from other things what persuades us to agree
completely with the Writ Court is that there is a report by the
consultancy agency of the appellant authority on record which clearly
demonstrates that the damage has been caused to the structures of the
respondents due to construction of road and failure of the appellant
authority to prevent drainage of rain water downhill towards the
structures of the respondents.
9. It may be pertinent to note that the report has been submitted by the
consultancy agency of the appellant authority on the request of the later.
Neither the aforesaid report has been disputed by the appellant authority
nor the appellant authority has referred the matter to some other experts
to have a fresh opinion in the matter. The appellant authority, having
accepted the report of its own consultancy, cannot be allowed to turn
around and say that the damage caused to the structures of the
respondents because of the construction of the road has not been proved
5 LPA No. 12/2025 in
WP (C) No. 826/2024
and that the appellant authority is not liable to compensate the
respondents. There is ample evidence on record which unequivocally
suggests that the damage to the structures of the respondents is only due
to the construction of the road. The structures of the respondents are
situate downhill and because of cutting of earth and the gap that was
created between the structures and the earth cutting, resulted into seepage
of rain/surface water, damaging the structures of the respondents.
10. In view of the aforesaid evidence available on record, the Writ Court
could not have taken any opinion other than the one taken in the
judgment impugned.
11. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the well
reasoned judgment passed by the Writ Court. The appeal is found to be
without any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with
connected application(s), if any.
12. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated.
(Moksha Khajuria Kazmi) (Sanjeev Kumar)
Judge Judge
JAMMU
03.03.2025
Manan
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
Manan Mahajan
2025.03.05 18:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link