BHAGAT RAJ AND ORS. vs STATE TH.P.W.D.AND ORS.

P a g e | 1

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU


OWP No. 1629/2014 c/w CPOWP No.2/2016

Reserved on: 28.09.2026
Pronounced on: 22.10.2026

Uploaded on: 22.10.2026.
Operative part or full judgment - Full

1. Bhagat Raj S/O Mukand Lal
R/O Ward No.17, Poonch City,
Poonch.

2. Ghulam Nabi S/O Abal Joo
R/O Ward No.17, Poonch City,
Poonch.

3. Nain Singh S/O Sampooran Singh,
R/O Ward No.17, Poonch City,
Poonch.

4. Bal Krishan S/O Nanak Chand,
R/O Khenetar, Poonch.


5. Narinder Kour Wf/O S. Bayant Singh
R/O Ward No.17, Poonch City,
Poonch.

6. Lokesh Kumar S/O Des Raj Sharma,
R/O Village Khanetar,
Poonch.

7. Usha Sharma Wf/O Lokesh Kumar
R/O Village Khanetar,
Poonch.
…Petitioner(s)

Through: Adv. Ravi Abrol.




Vs.

1. State of Jammu & Kashmir,
Through Commissioner/Secretary,
Public Works (R&B) Department,
Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.

2. Chief Engineer,
Public Works (R&B) Department,
Jammu.

3. Executive Engineer,
Public Works (R&B) Division.
Poonch.

4. M/S A.K. Constructions through
Shri Anil Sharma,
S/O Late Bindraban Sharma
R/O 181 A/O Gandhi Nagar,
Jammu.
…Respondent(s)

Through: AAG Ravinder Gupta.
Adv. Supreet Singh Johal.

P a g e | 2




CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

JUDGMENT



1. Through the medium of the present petition, filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pending before
this Court since the year 2014, the petitioners seek,
inter alia , a direction restraining the respondents from
extending the span of the “Sher-e-Kashmir Bridge”
Poonch, besides seeking strengthening of the protection
walls/bunds on either side of the Bridge and quashing
of the notice inviting tenders issued for the proposed
work. The petitioners have also prayed that in the event
the extension of the said Bridge is found necessary,
their properties situated downstream, be acquired in
accordance with law upon payment of adequate
compensation.

2. The case as set up by the petitioners, in their writ
petition, is that the existing Bridge, constructed during
the year 1991-92, is approximately 288.08 metres long
and that the respondents had proposed to extend its
span by 70.04 metres, by adding two spans of 35.02
metres each; that such extension would affect the
existing protection works and expose the adjoining
properties, including those belonging to the petitioners,
to the risk of flooding and damage.

P a g e | 3

3. The respondents, on the other hand, have justified the
proposed work by contending that the existing bridge
was designed in the year 1991-92 keeping in view a
flood discharge of approximately 6000 cumecs, whereas
subsequent hydraulic assessment, including the
experience of recent floods, has shown an increase in
the flood discharge to approximately 7450 cumecs; that
in view of the increased flood discharge the existing
waterway is required to be augmented by extending the
span of the bridge so as to avert the possibility of
flooding and consequent damage to the adjoining
localities. The respondents stated that having regard to
the increased flood discharge and the hydraulic
requirements, extension of the span of the bridge was
imperative .
4. During the pendency of the petition, this Court vide
order dated 29.05.2015 directed assessment of the
issue by a Committee to be constituted by the State
Government. Pursuant to the said directions, a
Committee was constituted by the Government of J&K,
in terms of Govt. Order No.130-PW(R&B) of 2015 dated
04.06.2015 and the matter was subjected to technical
examination.
5. It is the case of the official respondents that the
Committee, so constituted, recommended extension of
the flood protection bund and payment of compensation

P a g e | 4

to the legal owners of proprietary/maroosi land, as may
be decided by the authorities; that the Committee also
recommended the cases of the persons claiming evacuee
land as allottees, who are not as per records actual
allottees, be decided by the competent authority and the
persons in occupation of State land illegally, be
considered for „compensation‟ or „otherwise‟.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the
material available on file and considered the same.

7. The writ petition was instituted way back in the year
2014. Nearly twelve years have elapsed since its
institution. The Court is, therefore, required to examine
the relief claimed not merely with reference to the
factual position obtaining at the time of filing of the
petition, but also in the light of the subsequent events
which have occurred during the pendency of the
proceedings. It is well settled that a Court exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India can take note of subsequent events, where such
events have a material bearing upon the relief claimed
and where consideration of the changed circumstances
is necessary for doing complete justice between the
parties. In the present case, the subsequent technical
assessment is not an event extraneous to the
controversy. It goes to the very foundation of the
petition, namely, whether extension of the bridge is

P a g e | 5

necessary. The petitioners' challenge, as originally
framed, proceeded substantially on the premise that the
proposed extension was unnecessary and that it would
instead expose their properties to greater danger.
8. The factual position now placed before the Court is
considerably different. The respondents state that the
flood discharge for which the bridge was originally
designed was approximately 6000 cumecs, whereas,
subsequent hydraulic data indicated flood discharge of
approximately 7450 cumecs. The Committee constituted
pursuant to the directions of this Court has also found
the extension to be necessary. Thus, the basis upon
which the proposed work was originally questioned
cannot be considered in isolation from the subsequent
technical developments.
9. It is necessary to bear in mind, that the controversy
involves questions relating to hydraulic design, flood
discharge, adequacy of waterway and protection of
adjoining areas. These are matters involving technical
expertise. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article
226 of the Indian Constitution is not that of an
appellate authority over every administrative or
technical decision. The Court examines the decision
making process and interferes where the decision is
shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide ,
unreasonable or contrary to law. The Supreme Court in

P a g e | 6

Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported as (1994) 6
SCC 651 , while explaining the parameters of judicial
review, recognised that judicial review is directed
primarily towards the decision-making process and not
the merits of the decision as if the Courts were sitting in
appeal. The principle has repeatedly been applied in
cases involving technical and expert decisions. The
Supreme Court has observed that courts should
ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with the
opinion of expert bodies unless the decision is shown to
be manifestly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide .
10. The present case stands on an even different footing.
The technical conclusion regarding the necessity of
extension is not based merely upon the original
assertion contained in the reply filed by the
respondents. A Committee was constituted pursuant to
the directions of this Court itself and the issue was
thereafter examined. The Court is conscious that an
expert Committee's report is not immune from judicial
scrutiny. At the same time, where the issue involves
technical assessment, the Court would ordinarily attach
due weightage, to such assessment unless there is
material demonstrating that the report is arbitrary,
perverse, unsupported by relevant material or otherwise
vitiated in law. The Supreme Court has recently
reiterated that expert committees are constituted

P a g e | 7

because certain fact-finding exercises involve complex
technical questions and that courts should be
circumspect in rejecting their conclusions unless there
are valid grounds for doing so. No material has been
brought before this Court, which would warrant
rejection of the technical conclusion reached by the
Committee.
11. The petitioners have primarily expressed apprehension
that the extension may adversely affect their properties.
Such apprehension deserves consideration from the
standpoint of protection of their lawful interests,
however, it cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for
prohibiting a technically examined measure intended to
address an increased flood discharge, particularly when
the same is stated to be necessary for protection of the
adjoining areas, as a whole.
12. The Court is conscious of the fact that infrastructure
projects, particularly those relating to rivers, bridges
and flood protection, may have an impact upon private
properties. The State, while undertaking such works,
cannot disregard the rights of individual property
holders. At the same time, the State is also under an
obligation to take reasonable measures for protection of
life and property of the inhabitants of the area.
13. The two interests have, therefore, to be synchronized;
firstly, the Court cannot issue a blanket prohibition

P a g e | 8

against the project merely because the petitioners
apprehend that their properties may be affected;
secondly, the respondents cannot claim an unfettered
right to enter upon, acquire or demolish private property
merely because the project has been found technically
necessary. Both interests are capable of being protected
by requiring the respondents to act strictly in
accordance with law.
14. The Court is presently confronted with a technical
assessment based upon increased flood discharge and a
Committee report obtained pursuant to the Court's own
directions. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioners
had a legitimate grievance in the year 2014 requiring
consideration at that point of time, the relief of
prohibiting the proposed extension cannot now be
granted without taking into consideration the
developments which have occurred during the
intervening period. It is important to clarify that this
Court is not undertaking an independent hydraulic
exercise nor is it expressing any opinion as to the
precise engineering design which ought to be adopted
for the bridge. The limited conclusion that follows from
the material before this Court is that the competent
authorities have placed before the Court a subsequent
technical assessment which finds the extension of the
bridge necessary, and no legally sustainable ground has

P a g e | 9

been demonstrated to prohibit the authorities from
acting upon the said assessment. The decision to
execute the project, however, shall remain subject to
compliance with all applicable technical, statutory and
environmental/safety requirements, wherever
applicable.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the main relief sought by the
petitioners for restraining the respondents from
extending the span of the „Sher-e-Kashmir Bridge‟ at
Poonch with the construction of extension work of
bridge, cannot be granted at this stage, in view of the
completion of the extension work after technical
examination, pursuant to the directions of this Court.
At the same time, the petitioners, if, have suffered loss
of any of their properties during the extension work of
the Bridge are also entitled to be compensated in
accordance with law.
16. Viewed thus, the writ petition, is partly rejected and
partly allowed, with the following directions:
(i) the petitioners shall lay their claim, with regard to
the loss of any of their properties, due to the extension
work of the Sher-e-Kashmir Bridge, before the Deputy
Commissioner, Poonch, within the period of eight weeks
from the date of this order; and
(ii) the Deputy Commissioner, Poonch, shall verify, with
regard to the damage caused, if any, to any of the

P a g e | 10

properties of the petitioners due to extension/
construction of the span of the Sher-e-Kashmir Bridge
and take steps to pay compensation to the petitioners,
expeditiously in case, they are entitled to such
compensation.
17. Disposed of in terms of the above along-with all
pending miscellaneous application(s).
CPOWP No. 2/2016
18 . In view of judgment passed by this Court in OWP
No.1629/2014, the interim order dated 29.05.2015, out
of which the instant contempt petition has arisen, has
merged into the final judgment. Therefore, nothing
further survives for consideration in this contempt
petition. The proceedings in this contempt petition are
closed and the same is, accordingly, disposed of .



( M. A. CHOWDHARY )
JUDGE
Jammu
22.10.2026
Muzammil. Q

Whether the order is reportable: Yes / No
Raj Kumar
2026.10.22 18:09
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document