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, through Project Director, PIU-Ramban, Sh. Parshotam Kumar Phonsa. 2. Union of India, through Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, New Delhi. .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through :- Mr. Sunny Mahajan, Advocate v/s 1. Nazir Ahmed, 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. .....Respondent(s) 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 Sr. No. 09 2 LPA No. 12/2025 in WP (C) No. 826/2024 within 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