Srinagar, Dec 25: The High Court ordered that the position as on date be maintained about the construction of a link road to JumaMohalla at Drass in Ladakh.
A division bench of Justice Ali Muhammad Magrey and Justice Muhammad AkramChoudhary ordered for maintaining the present position about the construction of the link road after hearing senior counsel Bashir Ahmad Bashir on behalf of the residents of JumaMohalla opposing the construction of road and ASGI T M Shamsi representing authorities of Ladakh.
As the matter came up for hearing, the ASGI Shamsi on behalf of the official respondents sought permission to place on record a photocopy of communication dated December 21, 2021, addressed to Deputy Commissioner and CEO KAHDC, Kargil by Executive Engineer R&B II Kargil.
The communication indicated that the “earthwork of 200 meters on the land was completed and the link road was made motorable for public purposes”.
In response to the submission by Bashir that the contents of the letter were not correct, the court asked the ASGI to produce the record of the collector at the next date of hearing, February 9, 2022, saying that till then the present position on the spot as on date be maintained.
The Court also asked ASGI to file a supplementary affidavit indicating the steps taken after issuance of notification relating to the acquisition of land.
Inhabits of JumaMohalla in Drass through Muhammad Ibrahim have filed a writ petition before the High Court
challenging the land acquisition proceedings for construction of a link road in JumaMohalla allegedly leading towards the house of SajjadHussain.
It is alleged in the petition that Hussain, due to his political clout, was using official machinery so that villagers’ land was acquired for construction of the link road up to his house.
The petitioners claim that not only the majority of the villagers but representatives like panchs and sarpanches have given in writing that no such link road was needed in the area as the village already had three link roads.
The villagers have alleged that the small patch of land sought to be acquired being agricultural land was a livelihood of some families.