J&K HC Won’t Bar Completed Sher-e-Kashmir Bridge Extension, Gives Poonch Petitioners 8 Weeks To Seek Property-Damage Compensation

The petitioners challenged a proposed extension of the Sher-e-Kashmir Bridge at Poonch, seeking to restrain the work and strengthen the adjoining protection walls, alleging that the extension could expose their properties to flooding and damage. They also sought acquisition and compensation if their properties were affected.

The respondents stated that the bridge had originally been designed for a flood discharge of about 6,000 cumecs, while subsequent assessment indicated approximately 7,450 cumecs, making an increased waterway necessary.

On 29 May 2015, the Court directed a government committee to examine the issue. The committee recommended extension of the flood-protection bund and consideration of compensation for affected landholders.

During the petition’s pendency, the extension work was completed following technical examination.

A connected contempt petition arose from the interim order of 29 May 2015.

1. Whether the Court should restrain the bridge-extension work in light of the subsequent technical assessment finding the extension necessary.

2. Whether the petitioners may claim compensation for property damage caused by the extension work.

3. Whether the connected contempt proceedings survived after the interim order merged into the final judgment.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution, judicial review ordinarily examines the decision-making process, rather than substituting the Court’s view on the merits of a technical decision.

As explained in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, intervention is warranted where the decision-making process is unlawful, arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or otherwise legally flawed.

Courts should give due weight to expert technical assessments and exercise restraint unless grounds such as arbitrariness, perversity, or lack of relevant material are demonstrated.

A court may also consider subsequent events where they materially affect the relief sought and are relevant to doing complete justice.

The State may pursue a technically necessary public project, but must act in accordance with law and cannot enter upon, acquire, or demolish private property without lawful authority.

The petitioners’ challenge rested substantially on the premise that the extension was unnecessary and would endanger their properties. The later hydraulic assessment and the committee constituted on the Court’s direction indicated increased flood discharge and supported the need for extension; the petitioners produced no material establishing that the committee’s conclusion was arbitrary, perverse, or otherwise legally defective.

Because the matter involved technical questions and the work had been completed, the Court declined to prohibit the extension, while emphasizing that project execution remained subject to applicable legal, technical, environmental, and safety requirements.

The possibility of property damage did not justify a blanket prohibition, but warranted consideration of compensation for any loss established in accordance with law.

In the contempt matter, the interim order had merged into the final judgment, leaving no further issue for consideration.

The Deputy Commissioner was directed to verify any damage caused by the extension or construction and, where the petitioners were entitled, take steps to pay compensation expeditiously.

The contempt proceedings were closed because the interim order had merged into the final judgment.