Harveer Singh & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

1) The petitioners have filed the present PIL aggrieved as they are that a road which was sanctioned from Village Mohammadpur Jat from canal

bridge through North towards Harchandpur Minor, a part of the said road namely, the portion of the road which falls in plot no. 198 is yet to be

completed by respondent no. 5, the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Department.

2) The learned counsel for the State submits that that particular portion of the road cannot be constructed as people who have their land around that

portion of the road are causing obstruction in completion of the construction. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 and 8, the

private respondents, submits that they are the owners of plot no. 178. Although the road is supposed to be constructed in plot no. 198, the road has

started encroaching in their plot no. 178. According to the learned counsel, the defect is that so far no survey on plot no 177, 198 and 210 has been

carried out. Therefore, there is a confusion as to exact location where the road needs to be constructed. According to learned counsel, an attempt is

being made to encroach upon the land belonging to the respondent nos. 7 and 8. He further submits that the father of respondent no. 7 had filed a civil

suit. However, the learned civil court had declined to grant a temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed an appeal

against the rejection of the temporary injunction application. Simultaneously, the learned counsel suggests that if the three plots can be surveyed by the

District Magistrate, through the Tehsildar, Roorkee, the position would become clear on the issue whether the road is being constructed in plot no. 198

or it has suddenly encroached upon plot no. 177.

3) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4) It is, indeed, trite to state that roads are required by the public for their movement. Roads are the lifeline for the people living in the mountainous

terrain. Therefore, it is imperative that the roads be constructed so as to permit the people the freedom of movement which is guaranteed under

Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioners are justified in claiming that the construction of the road needs to be completed as

expeditiously as possible for the benefit of the public at large.

5) However, as there seems to be some dispute with regard to the issue whether the road is being constructed in plot no. 198 or has encroached upon

plot no. 177, this Court directs the District Magistrate, Haridwar to direct the Tehsildar, Roorkee to survey plot no 177, 198 and 210 and to submit his

report before the District Magistrate with a copy of the said report to be submitted to the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. Once it is clear that the

road is not encroaching on plot no. 177, but is passing through only plot no. 198, the respondent no. 5, the Superintending Engineer is directed to

complete construction of the road within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the report filed by the Tehsildar.

6) With these directions, the writ petition (PIL) stands disposed of.