Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mohd Umar Mir vs Union Territory Of J And K And on 7 May, 2025
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
Sr. No.7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP(C)PIL 2/2023 CM(3978/2024) CM(5627/2023)
MOHD UMAR MIR ...Petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Mir Umar (Petitioner in Per
son)
Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate for Intervenor
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ...Respondent(s)
OTHERS.
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
07-05-2025
1. Petitioner (Mohd Umar Mir), a respectable Member of the High Court
Bar Association had filed this petition in public interest raising concerns
as regards the protection of Bangus Valley and to devise a Master Plan
so that no concrete structure is raised which destroys the natural beauty
of the Valley and rather promotes the eco-tourism in the area.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondent authorities, affidavit on
behalf of respondent No. 3 was submitted. In essence, per the stand set
out therein, the authorities would ensure that not only the eco-tourism is
promoted but the required steps are taken which shall be eco-friendly.
And no commercial tourism would be encouraged and allowed in the
Valley. Further, Lolab Bangus Drangyadi Development Authority
(LBDDA) is constituted which is mandated to develop an eco-friendly
Master Plan for the Valley ensuring sustainable development without
promoting concrete construction or haphazard land allotment.
3. Subsequently, vide CM No. 3978/2024, Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, who also
happens to be a respectable Member of the Bar, has sought to intervene
in the matter, for respondent No. 03 (Divisional Forest Officer, Kehmil
Forest Division, Kralpora, Kupwara) had purportedly caused grave
violations of Forest Conservation Act. In fact, a picture of the ground
meadows went viral on the social media showing a concrete structure
made of cement and bricks being raised which apparently diminished the
natural beauty of the Valley.
4. Upon being served with a notice in the intervention application, the
respondents 1 to 3 have also filed objections/response today in court,
which is taken on record. Copy furnished.
5. We had heard the petitioner, the intervenor as also Mr. Mohsin Qadri,
learned senior AAG appearing for the respondents at length and perused
the records.
6. In context of the issue that arises for consideration, we consider it
expedient to refer to paragraph 6 & 7 of the response/objections that have
been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 today in court:
6. “In reply to averments made in para 7 of the petition, it is
submitted that the site selection has been made keeping in
view the existing security facility, police presence and road
connectivity making it as a safer location for the Forest
Frontline staff to stay overnight. This choice also ensures
that the structures are concentrated in one area, thereby
preventing scattered/haphazard construction in the Bangus
valley. That it is pertinent to mention that the said site is
located at the threshold point of the Lokut Bangus allowing
quick mobility of the staff.
It is submitted that no commercial buildings for tourism
purposes are proposed for construction in Bangus. The
proposed staff quarter is a modest structure of around 1,000
square feet, intended solely for forest frontline staff who are
responsible for the protection, conservation, and
management of the Bangus Valley and surrounding forests.
7. In reply to averments made in para 8 of the petition, it is
submitted that the construction of the frontline staff quarters
is in full compliance with legal requirements, and the
respondents remain committed to ensuring that no
unauthorized structures are built. The future Ecotourism
infrastructure development shall be focused and
concentrated at the base of Bangus Valley i.e. at the
designated spots Between the Dringyari and BadiBehak. The
rest of the Bangus Valley shall be designated as a no-
construction zone for tourism to safeguard its ecological
sensitivity. This zoning will serve as a protective buffer and a
shock absorber, mitigating anthropogenic impact and
preserving the ecological integrity of the region. The
respondents are fully mindful of their obligations to protect
the valley and promote eco-tourism in a sustainable and
responsible manner. The construction of the Forest
Frontline staff quarters (BO’sHut) in Bangus Valley is
lawful, necessary, and shall be completely in sync with the
natural surroundings once completed. The instant
application for intervention, as such deserves to be
dismissed.”
7. In the wake of the position sketched out above, the petitioner as also the
intervenor, as always, fairly submit that nothing substantive survives in
the petition and the same be disposed of in terms of the stand set out in
the response filed by respondents 1 to 3. However, it is urged that in the
event any cause of action arises in future, the petitioner would avail such
remedies as admissible in law.
8. That being so and for the petition has apparently served its purpose, we
close the proceedings in the present case. But before we part with, we
must record a deep appreciation for the petitioner, the intervenor as also
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned senior AAG who assisted the court in the
right earnest and truly for public good/interest.
(RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
SRINAGAR
07-05-2025
Aadil
[ad_1]
Source link