J&K High Court Dismisses Challenge To Tral Link Road Project, Says Judicial Restraint Is Crucial In Areas Requiring Technical Expertise

“Judicial restraint is especially warranted where the subject-matter requires specialized knowledge, such as the alignment of highways or public roads, which is fundamentally a matter of technical feasibility and infrastructural prudence,” observed Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh while dismissing a petition against the construction of a rural road.Underscoring the fact that technical expertise and policy decisions are to be left to the domain of qualified authorities Justice Nargal emphasised that the Court while exercising its power of judicial review does not assume the role of an appellate authority over technical decisions, unless they are manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of constitutional or statutory mandates.The case arose from a challenge mounted by seven residents of a village in Pulwama who claimed that the new road, Pushar Road, was being built over irrigation canals. They alleged that the construction was being undertaken to unfairly boost the market value of nearby land owned by influential persons, and that it posed a threat to agricultural irrigation and flood safety.In their plea, the petitioners led by 70-year-old Abdul Aziz Reshi sought directions to halt the road project, remove alleged encroachments, and restore the irrigation canal's flow. They invoked Section 83 of the J&K Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010 to argue that any obstruction of water bodies was prohibited and must be cleared.However, the respondents including the Revenue Department, Rural Development Department, and other local authorities firmly countered the allegations. They submitted that the road was a long-standing demand of the residents and was executed after due administrative and technical evaluation. The authorities argued that portions of the road did pass through land recorded as Gair Mumkin Darrah (drain), but no irrigation functionality had been lost. They asserted that flow channels had been retained and that the project served larger public interest by improving access to farms, markets, and the Razaq Shah habitation.Interestingly, the record revealed that some of the petitioners themselves were encroachers on state land, which had been lawfully retrieved before road construction commenced. The Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Division clarified that the canal in question was a zamindari khul (community irrigation channel) and not maintained by the government, thereby excluding his department from any liability.Justice Nargal, while analyzing the matter, emphasized the limited role of the judiciary in second-guessing technical and policy decisions, especially in infrastructure-related matters. Citing authoritative judgments of the Supreme Court, including Union of India v. D. Kushala Shetty and G. Narsing Rao v. NHAI, the Court reiterated that issues such as road alignment, design feasibility, and rural connectivity fall within the domain of expert agencies.The Court observed, “Formulation and execution of road development projects must be founded upon a rigorous and comprehensive process of technical examination. The Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, does not assume the role of an appellate authority over technical decisions, unless they are manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of constitutional or statutory mandates.”Rejecting allegations of malafide intent and selective development, the Court held that no material had been produced to substantiate the petitioners' claims. Rather, the project was shown to be a product of local demand, technical clearance, and administrative planning.“The allegation that the road alignment was selected to serve private interests or to interfere with irrigation, has not been substantiated by any credible evidence on record. Rather, the material placed before the Court indicates that the decision was after consideration of technical feasibility and public benefit”, recorded Justice Nargal. Holding that the road project was neither illegal nor contrary to law, and that irrigation concerns had been duly addressed, Justice Nargal concluded that the petition had become infructuous over time as the project neared completion.“The mere presence of an irrigation canal cannot, by itself, render a public project suspect, particularly when safeguards are in place and the benefits to the larger community are overwhelming,” the Court remarked.With these findings, the High Court dismissed the petition as meritless. Case Title: Abdul Aziz Reshi Vs UT Of J&K Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 262Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

J&K High Court Dismisses Challenge To Tral Link Road Project, Says Judicial Restraint Is Crucial In Areas Requiring Technical Expertise

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags