AFR
Judgment reserved on 30.04.2010
Judgment delivered on 02.07.2010
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.63057 of 2009
Prem Chandra Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.
Hon. Virendra Singh, J.
In this writ petition filed in public interest Shri Prem
Chandra Srivastava, resident of Village and Post Kilhapur
(Tarhethi) Distt. Jaunpur, has on his behalf, and for the benefit of
the residents of the area around river Varuna sought intervention of
the Court against the diversion and relocation of the bridge over
the river constructed by the Department of Irrigation, Government
of U.P. from public funds, to serve the individual interest of
respondent Nos.3 to 5, to connect their agricultural fields on either
side of the river. It is alleged that the site of the bridge proposed
on the river Varuna amongst the 11 bridges to be constructed in
pursuance to decision taken in the meeting dated 25.7.2007 of the
Irrigation Department, under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble
Minister, on ‘Varuna Nala’, 0.00 k.m. to 38.3 k.m. in respect of
Village Road Bridge (VRB) at K.M. 21.945 at Tarhethi Bazar, has
been changed illegally and arbitrarily only on an application given
by respondent No.3 seeking approval to connect the fields of
respondent Nos.3 to 5.
On 23.11.2009 we called upon the respondents to file
replies and stayed the construction of the bridge by an order as
follows:-
“In this writ petition filed in public interest, the
petitioner has raised an issue of construction of a bridge
connecting the fields of private individuals, arrayed as
respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 for their benefit from public
funds. It is stated that the public money is being spent on the
constructions of the bridge on river ‘Varuna’ connecting the
fields of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. There are no approach
2roads to the bridge on either side and that the alternate
bridge is only at a distance of 1.5 KM, for use by general
public. It is also stated that the requisite permission under
Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 for construction of bridge has not been
taken from the U.P. Pollution Control Board.
Shri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
petitioner submits that the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 are
influential persons and that they have got the bridge
sanctioned from public funds for their individual use,
without any public purpose.
Learned Chief Standing counsel has accepted notice
on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Shri P.C.
Shukla appears for U.P. Pollution Control Board-
respondent no.2. Issue notice to respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.
Steps in three days.
List/put up on 30.11.2009.
Learned standing counsel has placed on record the
instructions received by him and singed by the District
Magistrate, Jaunpur, and Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Machhalishahar, Jaunpur on 21.11.2009. In these
instructions, it is stated that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 are
police officers. The respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 are real
brothers and their mother is the Pradhan of Village
Tarhethi. It has been denied that the bridge is being
constructed only for the benefit of respondent nos. 3, 4 and
5. The bridge over river ‘Varuna’ to connect District
Jaunpur and village Sultanpur, District Allahabad, has
become old and dilapidated and keeping in view of the
public interest in mind and the interest of the villagers, the
subject bridge is being constructed. The flow of the river is
not likely to be affected and that the constructions are in
progress near the old bridge.
The District Magistrate and the Sub Divisional
Magistrate have thereafter in their instructions admitted
that there is no ‘Chak’ road or a road for approaching the
bridge on both the sides. There is a Kharanja road, which
passes through the fields of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5, and
is being used by the villagers. On the other side of the
bridge in village Sultanpur, there is a road, which connects
it with pakki sarak. The District Magistrate, and the Sub
Divisional Magistrate have opined that it is not correct to
say that the bridge will benefit only respondent nos. 3, 4 and
5.
A proposal of the utility; technical appraisal; and
permission from the State Government and U.P. Pollution
Control Board are essential for constructing any bridge. It
is admitted in the report of the District Magistrate, Jaunpur
and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Machhlishahar, Jaunpur,
that there is no public road, which can be used to connect
3
the bridge on both the sides. The Kharanja passes through
the agricultural fields of respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5. It is
doubtful whether this Kharanja can be used by general
public and whether it is easily connected with the villages so
that the bridge under construction can be used by general
public.
We are prima facie of the opinion that the public
money is being used to benefit only a few individuals.
We therefore direct that until 30.11.2009 the
respondents shall not proceed to constructions of the
bridge. A copy of the order may be given to Chief Standing
Counsel tomorrow for compliance.”
Shri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the mother of respondent Nos.3 to 5 Smt. Israji was the
Gran Pradhan of Village Tarhethi, Distt. Jaunpur. She utilised the
Gram Sabha fund for constructions of a small bridge at a place,
where it connected the fields of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 on either
side of the river. The unauthorised constructions of the bridge
without technical clearance and permission of the Irrigation
Department stopped the flow of the stream of the river during rainy
season and threatened floods to the village and its vicinity on both
sides.
The Irrigation Department sanctioned construction of 11
bridges across river Varuna after desilting. One of the bridges was
proposed at Tarhethi Bazar at 1.54 km. from the Tarhethi Gaon,
where the old bridge of Gaon Sabha exists. Instead of constructing
the bridge with six span, at Tarhethi Bazar, the Irrigation
Department started constructions at about 40′, from the old Gaon
Sabha bridge.
The villagers had protested to the relocation of the site of
construction of the bridge. They approached their local Member of
Legislative Assembly Shri Subhash Pandey, who is also the
Minister of Culture in the State of U.P. by making a representation
on 13.7.2009 to construct a new bridge. The applications were
forwarded by the local M.L.A. to Hon’ble the Chief Minister on
18/20.7.2009 along with covering letter. Shri Dinesh Kumar
4
Dubey, Advocate, a resident of the village also moved an
application on 5.11.2009 under Right to Information Act, 2005
before the respondent Nos.6 and 7, for information, whether any
permission from the Pollution Control Board has been obtained for
construction of the new bridge in village Tarhethi. In the
meantime, the constructions continued compelling the petitioner to
approach the Court. It is submitted that under Section 24 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 no person is
permitted to knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream,
which may tend either directly or in combination with similar
matters to impede flow of the water of the stream in a manner
leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution.
Sub-section (2) provides that person shall be guilty of an offence
under sub-section (1), by reason only of having done or caused to
be done any of the following acts, namely (a) constructing,
improving or maintaining in or across or on the bank or bed of any
stream any building, bridge, weir, dam, sluice, dock, pier, drain or
sewer or other permanent works which he has a right to construct,
improve or maintain. Shri Alok Kumar Yadav alleges that on
enquiries the respondent Nos.5 and 6 could not show, the no
objection certificate issued by the Pollution Control Board to
construct the bridge, and to the best of the knowledge of the
petitioner and other villagers no such certificate was ever obtained
from the Pollution Control Board.
Shri Yadav submits that the bridge is being constructed by
the Irrigation Department at Village Tarhethi by changing the site,
from public funds only to connect Plot Nos.1711 and 1717 of
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 situate in Jaunpur with their plots situate
on the other side of the river falling in District Allahabad. The
constructions are wholly unauthorised, and will deprive the
villagers and other persons, of the construction and use of the
proposed bridge at Tarhethi Bazar. The disputed constructions of
the bridge do not have a road in alignment on both sides of the
5
main road. The respondents have provided a connecting road on
both sides, a way by a diversion at 900 to avoid the agricultural
fields of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, causing a permanent deviation
on the approach road of the bridge. The entire activity is being
done at the behest of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 having good
connections in the Government. There is no order passed by any
competent authority for such diversion.
Before considering the averments made in the affidavits
filed by Asstt. Engineer, Drainage Division, Fatehpur it is
necessary to point out to the averments in the affidavit of Shri
Sumit Benjamin Franklin posted as Regional Officer, U.P.
Pollution Control Board, Varanasi. In para 7 of his affidavit he
has stated that no representation has been received by the U.P.
Pollution Control Board from the respondent Nos.3 to 9. No
application to obtain No Objection Certificate was submitted. The
contents of Para 7 of the affidavit is quoted as below:-
“7. That in reply to the contents of paragraph No.19,
and 26 of the writ petition it is submitted that no
representation has been received by the answering
respondent from the respondent Nos.3 to 9. No application
to obtain No Objection Certificate has been submitted
either. The aforesaid activity is gross violation of the
provisions of Section 24 of the Water Pollution (Prevention
and Control) Act, 1974. It is further submitted that as per
the report of spot inspection carried out by the answering
respondent, it is evident that construction of a bridge on
the spot in question will severely affect the environment
due to obstruction of flow of water in the river Varuna. A
true and correct copy of inspection report dated 30.11.2009
is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.1 to
this counter affidavit.”
(emphasis supplied)
The inspection report of Shri P.P. Srivastava, Asstt.
Environment Engineer and Shri B.K. Srivastava, Technical
Assistant dated 26.11.2009 annexed to the affidavit of Shri Sumit
Benjamin Franklin, Regional Officer, U.P. Pollution Control Board,
Varanasi reads as follows:-
6
“xzke rjgVh] ijxuk eqWxjk] rglhy eNyh’kgj tkSuiqj esa o:.kk
unh ij fueZk.kk/khu iqy ds laca/k esa fujh{k.k vk[;k A
——————————————————————————————————————————
vkids funsZ’kkuqlkj mijksDr iz’uxr LFky dk fujh{k.k
v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk fnukad 26 uoEcj 2009 dks fd;k x;k A
vk[;k fuEuor gS
eSygu >hy ls fudyus okyh o:.kk unh tuin tkSuiqj
,oW bykgkckn dh lhek ls cgrs gq, tuin okjk.klh esa jkt?kkV
ds lehi xaxk feyrh gS A mDr fueZk.kk/khu iqy tks
eqWxjkckn’kkgiqj ls yxHkx 13 fdeh0 dh nwjh ij fLFkr xzke
rjgVh] eNyh’kgj tkSuiqj esa fLFkr gS A fujh{k.k ds le;
mifLFkr Bsdsnkj ds eka’kh Jh t; flag }kjk voxr djk;k x;k
fd iz’uxr LFky ij iqy dk fueZk.k vf/k’kklh vfHk;Urk Mzsust
[k.M] Qrsgiqj }kjk djk;k tk jgk gS ftldh dqy yEckbZ yxHkx
40 ehVj] pkSMkbZ yxHkx 05 ehVj rFkk mWpkbZ unh dh lrg ls
yxHkx 2-68 ehVj fufeZr fd;k tkuk gS A mDr iqy ds fueZk.k
gsrq dqy N% [kEHkksa dk fueZk.k vkaf’kd :i ls fd;k x;k gS A
fujh{k.k ds le; fueZk.k dk;Z cUn ik;k x;k A xzke rjgVh ds
fuoklh Jh vej cgknqj] Jh ‘khrynhu] Jh HkksykukFk] Jh larks”k
dqekj ;kno ,oa xzke lqYrkuiqj tuin bykgkckn ds fuoklh Jh
yky cgknqj flag ,oa Jh jkeyky us voxr djk;k fd mDr iqy
ds fueZk.k ls xzke rjgVh ,oa xzke lqYrkuiqj ds yksxksa dks tuin
tkSuiqj ,oa bykgkckn vkokxeu lqfo/kktud gks tk;sxk A orZeku
esa fueZk.kk/khu iqy ds nksuksa vksj ls dksbZ laidZ ekxZ ugha gS A unh
ds nksuksa rVksa ij d`f”k ;ksX; Hkwfe gS A
fueZk.kk/khu iqy ls iwjc fn’kk esa yxHkx 1-5 fdeh0 dh nwjh
ij rjgVh cktkj ds fudV ,d iqy iwoZ ls Lfkkfir gS bls orZeku
esa Hkh vkokxeu ds fy;s mi;ksx esa yk;k tk jgk gS tks xzke
rjgVh ijxuk eqWxjkckn’kkgiqj tkSuiqj ls mxzlsuiqj gksrs gq,
rglhy Qwyiqj] tuin bykgkckn dks tksMrh gS A nksuksa vksj
iDdh lMd fufeZr gS rFkk buij vkokxeu lqpk: :i ls gks jgk
Fkk A
iqy ds fueZk.k gsrq cksMZ ls i;Zkoj.kh; n`f”Vdks.k ls dksbZ
vukifRr izek.k i= izkIr ugha fd;k x;k gS A
mijksDr vk[;k lknj lwpukFkZ izLrqr gS A
g0v0 g0v0
(ch0ds0 JhokLro) (ih0 ih0 JhokLro)
oSKkfud lgk;d lgk0 i;kZ0 vfHk;Urk””
7
In the counter affidavit of Shri Narendra Prasad Singh,
Asstt. Engineer, Drainage Division, Fatehpur it is stated in para 4
that Varuna Nala originates from Mailhan Jheel of District
Allahabad. The total length of Varuna Nala is 33.800 km. The
Varuna Nala meets at Village Bari, Distt. Allahabd, with another
Nala namely Sahanva Tal Nala and after this place it is called as
Varuna river. There are total 11 bridges on Varuna Nala between
the distance of 0.00 km. to 33.800 k.m. The bridges are of two
kinds namely Village Road Bridge (VRB) and District Road
Bridge (DRB). Out of these 11 bridges there are 5 DRB and
VRB, one railway bridge and one cross regulator. The water
flowing capacity of the Varuna Nala has been reduced due to
narrowing of nala on the deposit of silt, and as such during rainy
season the ‘nala’ gets flooded, affecting 24 villages and their
agricultural land. The villagers and their representatives made their
representations to raise the water flowing capacity and to improve
the drainage capacity of Varuna Nala on which a project namely
‘Rehabilitation and Improving Drainage Capacity of Varuna
Nala’ was prepared in order to provide facility to the general
public. The project was sanctioned by the High Level Committee
of the Irrigation Department on 25.7.2007, in which administrative,
technical and financial approval was given.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the Asstt.
Engineer, Drainage Division, Fatehpur that the project included
the reconstruction/ extension of bridges situate on the Nala. The
bridges, which are in good condition are not being disturbed, only
extension is being made. The bridges, which are not in good
condition, rather in dilapidated condition are being replaced by
new bridges, which is nearby or on the sides of the bridges. The
bridge in question is in dilapidated condition shown by letter ‘D’ in
the site plan. In para 12 it is stated, “that bridge in question is
having both side connecting way since the initial construction of
8
this bridge and the general public uses this bridge from the way
existing to connect this bridge.”
In para 14 and 15 of the affidavit it is stated that the total
width of the new constructed VRB is 4.25 mtrs. This bridge will be
connecting the old ways already existing. The long section of
Varuna Nala in order to increase water flowing capacity and
drawing of V.R.B. was sanctioned by the Chief Engineer. In para
19 it is stated that the bridges are being constructed at the side of
old bridges. It is wrong to say that the bridge is being constructed
under the influence of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and the allegation
that the bridge in question will stop the stream of ‘nala’. The flow
of water begins from Mailhan Jheel to Varuna river, which
ultimately meets with Ganga river at Varanasi. In para 28 it is
stated that the bridge is 50% complete and the material is lying at
the site of the river.
Annexure No.CA-1 to the affidavit of Shri Narendra Prasad
Singh, Asstt. Engineer, Drainage Division, Fatehpur shows that
original bridge VRB was proposed to be constructed at Tarhethi
Bazar at 21.945 km., which has been shifted to Point ‘D’ (VRB) at
Tarhethi Gaon at 23.485 km. The distance between the site of the
proposed bridge and the site where the bridge is being constructed
admitted by the Irrigation Department is 1.54 kms.
The State has filed the affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra
Yadav, Tehsildar, Machali Shahar, Distt. Jaunpur in which it is
stated that Varuna Nadi flows between Distt. Jaunpur and
Allahabad. A pakka bridge exists on the river at Kilhapur
Tarhethi Bazar, which connects Tarhethi Tehsil Machchali Shahar,
Jaunpur to Village Sokoshvir, Tehsil Handia, Distt. Allahabad but
that this bridge is situate at 1.5. kms. towards west of the bridge
under construction. In para 5 he states that the respondent No.3 is
member of Gram Panchayat and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are police
officers. They are all real brothers. Their mother is Village
Pradhan of Village Tarhethi. The land towards Village Tarhethi is
9
recorded transferable bhumidhari of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5,
whereas the land in Village Sultanpur the other side of the village
is recorded in the name of Late Maharajdeen @ Matadeen son of
Gurudeen, the father of respondent No.3, 4, and 5. In this manner
Araji No.1711/0.547 hects. in Village Tarhethi is recorded in the
name of Shri Brij Lal, Jag Mohan and Sudhakar sons of
Maharajdeen and Araji No.1717/0.668 hects. in the Village
Tarhethi recorded in the name of Brij Lal, Jagmohan and
Sudhakar, sons of Maharajdeen and Israji Devi. He has denied in
para 7 that the bridge is being constructed only for the benefit of
respondent Nos.3, 4, and 5. Prior to construction of this bridge, a
bridge of small width was constructed for local needs. It has
become old and thus the construction of new bridge will be of
benefit to the villagers on both sides of the river and will be
convenient for the movement of the villagers on both sides. He
has also stated that some of the farmers of Village Sultanpur Tehsil
Handia Distt. Allahabad also have their land in Village Tarhethi
Distt. Jaunpur such as in Araji No.1717/0.656 hects. of Shri Lal
Pratap son of Udai Pal and Araji No.1712/1.0.84 in the name of
Shri Chote Lal, Shri Lal Bahadur, Ram Bahadur and Fauzdar, sons
of Shri Thakur Baksh.
In paras 9 and 11 he has denied that the bridge will raise any
issue of water logging or floods. In para 13 he states that there is
an old passage of ‘kachcha bricks’ to connect the old bridge
constructed by Gaon Sabha near the new bridge by adding the
boundaries of Plot Nos.1717, 1709 and 1710. This kachcha road
travels upto Gata No.1700, which is recorded as ‘nala’ on which a
kachcha brick road is constructed and which meets the pucca road.
Gata No.1711 belongs to respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and Gata
Nos.1709, 1710 belongs to Chotte Lal and Ram Lal sons of
Jagdev. The bridge under construction is adjacent to Gata No.1710.
The kachcha road is used by the villagers. The road on the other
side of the river also meets the main road.
10
Shri Bal Mayank Misra, S.D.M., Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur in
his affidavit states in paras 5, 6 and 7 as follows:-
“5. That it is further submitted that from the map it is
clear that the distance between the damaged old bridge and
new bridge is 40 Mts. From the map it is also clear that
earlier the approach khadanja was proposed shown by
letters from “Ka” and “Kha”, and connecting with the
khadanja “Ga” and “Gha” over the Nali as recorded in the
village records. The plot No. of Nali shown by Letters
“Ga” and “Gha” is plot No.1700. The total distance of
“Ka” and “Kha” is as follows:
1. Ka-Kha 90X3 =270 Sq. Mts.
=0.027 Hectares
In 1711 0.013 Hectares- Brij Lal and others sons of
Maharaj Deen
In 1710 0.014 Hectares- Chotey Lal and others sons of Jag
Dev
2. Kha-Ga. Nali Par Kharanja, has been recorded in
name of Gram Sabha
314 X 3.75 = 1177.5 Sq. Mts.
= 0.118 Hectares.
6. It is also submitted that from the map it is clear that
the approach road shown by letters “Ka” to “Kha” are
from the Bhumidhari of Plot No.1710 and 1711. Plot
No.1710 belongs to Chotey Lal and Plot No.1711 belongs to
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. For convenient perusal by this
Hon’ble Court Photostat Copy of the Map is being filed
herewith and marked as Annexure No.A1 to this affidavit.
7. That it is further submitted that in the order dated
5.12.2009 it has been recorded that in paragraph 4 of the
counter affidavit filed by Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav,
Tehsildar, it is stated that the old bridge is 1.5. kmts.
towards west. In this regard it is submitted that in fact the
said reference was to another bridge and was not with
regard to the distance between the old bridge and new
bridge in question. The deponent reiterates that the
distance between the damaged old bridge and new bridge
is 40 Mts.”
Shri Satya Prakash Mishra, Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, Distt.
Allahabad has also filed an affidavit stating therein that survey was
made in pursuance to the order of the Court dated 5.12.2009 by the
Naib Tehsildar and map was prepared according to which the
11
approach road towards bridge under construction has
bifurcated the plots belonging to respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5
namely Plot No.187, 188, 275 and 276. He has stated that now
the approach road is going at the one end of bhumidhari belonging
to the said respondents as shown in the map by letters ‘Ka’ ‘Kha’
‘Ga’. The total distance as shown in the report by letters ‘Ka’ and
‘Ga’ is 180 mts. and the total area is around 630 sq. mtrs. As per
the measurement carried out by the answering respondent the
distance between old bridge and the new bridge is 40 mtrs. and the
width of the approach road is 12 feets as has been shown by letters
‘Ka’ ‘Kha’ and ‘Ga’.
He further states in para 5 that the bhumidhars of the plots
from whose land the approach road is going, have already
undertaken to surrender the said land for being used as public road.
Their statement that they are ready to surrender has been annexed
to the affidavit.
We repeatedly requested the Addl. Advocate General to
show us the permission of the competent authority, with revised
technical, administrative and financial appraisals, for shifting the
bridge from its old site at Tarhethi Bazar km. 21.945 to Tarhethi
Gaon km. 23.485; the permission of the Pollution Control Board,
and to demonstrate whether the approach road would be running in
a straight line, and the provision of village road (chak road) through
the fields of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5. He has filed an affidavit of
Shri Narendra Prasad Singh, Asstt. Engineeer, Drainage Division,
Fatehpur stating as follows:-
“3. That so far as the justification regarding
selecting the site for the purposes of construction of the
New Bridge is concerned, it is submitted that earlier on the
Phulpur side of district Allahabad the road was bifurcating
the land of respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 almost middle of their
plots. It is further submitted that the said respondent Nos.3,
4 and 5 in fact made the request to take their land for the
purposes of approach road from the right side of their land
shown in the map by letters ‘A’ and ‘B’. It may be clarified
that earlier the approach road is shown in the map by letters
‘C’ and ‘D’.
12
4. That it is further submitted that the said approach
road connects Village Tarhati of Jaunpur District to Village
Sultanpur Gaon of Allahabad District. The total distance
between the two Villages is around 400 Mts. The distance
between the old bridge and the new bridge as measured by
the answering respondent is 35 Mts.
5. That it is also submitted that in fact the availability
of the land was ensured and the Bhumidhars of the land
from whose land the approach road was to be constructed
to connect it within the main road. The Bhumidhars of the
respective plots has undertaken to be part of their land for
being used as public road permanently, leaving all their
rights over the said land. For convenient perusal by this
Hon’ble Court Photostat Copy of the Map together with the
report submitted Executive Engineer, Drainage Division,
Fatehpur dated 8.12.2004 along with documents annexed
therewith is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure
No.A-1 to this affidavit.
6. That from the aforesaid facts it is clear that
precaution has been taken to provide the approach road for
being used as public road, while constructing the new
bridge, and the justification for selecting the site was in fact
the land to be provided by the owners/ Bhumidhars towards
district Allahabad side, as they wanted to safe their land to
be bifurcated in two part, as was the position earlier, though
they showed their readiness and willingness to be part of
their Bhumidhar land and requested for taking the same on
the one hand of their Bhumidhar Land as shown in the map
by letters ‘A’ and ‘B’.”
Anneuxre A-1 verified by the Executive Engineer, Drainage
Division, Fatehpur would show that on both sides of bridge under
construction approach the proposed kacha road turns at 900 to meet
the brick layered road to the connecting roads. These 90 0 turns
have been provided to avoid the agricultural fields of respondent
Nos.3, 4 and 5. The certificate of the same Executive Engineer
dated 18.12.2009 verifies that the site of the original
sanctioned bridge (VRB) has been changed. The old bridge,
which was constructed from the fund of Gaon Sabha was
proposed to be dismantled in the proceedings of the meeting dated
25.7.2007. This old bridge crossed the river to Village Sultanpur
through the fields of Shri Brij Lal Yadav. At the time of
rehabilitation of the Varuna Nala, the said farmer made a request
13
for construction of a village road bridge from one side of his field
and accordingly works was started 35 kms. upstream. On one side
of the bridge under construction is Village Tarhethi in Distt.
Jaunpur and on the other side there is Village Sultanpur Distt.
Allahabad connecting through kachcha road, and that for the
shifting both the tenure holders have given their written
permission.
We have carefully examined the records and find that there
was no proposal to revive of the old bridge, shown to be a Private
Regulator. It was proposed to be dismantled as unauthorised
bridge. The High Level Committee in its meeting dated 25.7.2007
considered the technical, administrative and financial appraisals,
and proposed a (VRB) Village Road Bridge at km. 21.945 at
Tarhethi Bazar. The respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 made an
individual request to change the site of the proposed VRB (Village
Road Bridge), 1.5 km., upstream towards Mailhan lake at Tarhethi
Village at 23.485 km. It is apparent that the site was changed for
the benefit of respondent Nos.3 to 5, and some villagers, on the side
of Allahabad without there being any connecting road. Further in
order to save the passage, passing through the agricultural fields of
respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, a 900 diversion is proposed
immediately after the bridge to connect kachcha road, to lead to the
main road. The entire effort is totally unauthorised, to benefit
some farmers. The diversion of the site did not have technical
approval of the competent authority namely Principal Secretary,
Irrigation, Government of U.P.; Rehabilitation Commissioner,
Board of Revenue; Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Government of U.P.;
Chief Engineer, Project and Planning; Chief Engineer Mechanical,
who had participated in the meeting dated 25.7.2007, and the U.P.
Pollution Control Board. The site and the approach roads were not
provided and prepared. The larger public purpose was given up to
suit the convenience of some of the villagers on either side of the
14
relocated site at 1.54 kms. from the original proposed
construction.
By an undated letter Shri Brij Lal Yadav and Shri Chhote
Lal made a request to Executive Engineer, Drainage Division,
Fatehpur, to relocate the bridge upstream for which they were
ready to give their land for approach road, on the right side to
connect the main road. It is apparent that Shri Brij Lal Yadav was
aware that the old bridge, about 40 mtrs. upstream constructed
from the funds of Gaon Sabha, was not planned to be renovated or
reconstructed. Infact the proposals approved by the High Level
Committee on 25.7.2007, provided for construction of bridge 1.54
kms. downstream at Tarhethi Bazar at 21.945 km. The
misinformed and misconceived application of Shri Brij Lal Yadav
was considered by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division,
Fatehpur. He changed the site of the bridge, 1.54 km. upstream on
his own, without seeking any technical, financial or administrative
approval of High Level Committee consisting of experts and the
U.P. Pollution Control Board.
The documents brought on record and the facts stated in the
affidavit discussed as above, clearly demonstrate that construction
of bridge for the benefit of the residents of the entire area
connecting the main roads, was diverted and that the bridge was
relocated 1.54 kms. upstream at Tarhethi Gaon, only on the
request of Shri Brij Lal Yadav and for convenience of some farmers
having their agricultural lands on both sides of relocated site. The
Executive Engineer acted on is own without seeking any technical,
administrative or financial approvals and the approval of the U.P.
Pollution Control Board, in relocating the site, and started the
constructions.
We have no hesitation in recording our opinion that the
entire action was taken on the request of Shri Brij Lal Yadav on
which the public funds for construction of bridge sanctioned by
High Level Committee on 25.7.2007, were diverted to connect the
15
agricultural fields of respondents. The respondent No.6 misused
his authority on the behest of the private persons in directing the
construction of bridge from public funds, in violation of Section
24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The construction of the bridge at the disputed site has not been
approved by the technical experts. Further he did not consider that
the turn of the approach road at 900 angles on both sides to avoid
agricultural fields of respondents, and some other villagers, will
permanently obstruct the free flow of traffic upto the approach
roads. Even as a layman, we can say that if approach roads to the
bridge turns at 900 on the slopes on both sides, within a short
distance, the design will not only obstruct the traffic but will also
make the roads unsafe for use by the travellers.
This writ petition filed in public interest is thus found to be
a bonafide litigation for the welfare of the residents of the region.
The petitioner has successfully established that a Village Road
Bridge proposed to be constructed after technical, administrative
and financial approvals of the High Level Committee amongst the
eleven bridges on the river, has been relocated without any
authority and approval of U.P. Pollution Control Board for the
benefit of certain individuals.
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed
to stop the constructions of the Village Road Bridge at Tarhethi
Gaon at 23.485 km. on Varuna Nala, and to proceed to construct
the Village Road Bridge, at the sanctioned and approved site at
Tarhethi Bazar, at 21.945 km. It will be open to the State
Government to realise the loss caused on the part constructions of
the bridge at Tarhethi Gaon from the Executive Engineer, Drainage
Division, Fatehpur. The petitioner will be entitled to costs of
Rs.10,000/-, to pursue this bonafide litigation in public interest.
The petitioner has not only served public interest in checking the
misuse of the public funds, but has also saved the villagers, and the
residents of the area, from the threat of possible flooding of the
16
river and the consequent loss to the farmers on its banks. The
Irrigation Department will ensure compliance of Section 24 of the
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in seeking
necessary permission of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, before
carrying on and continuing constructions of the bridge in question
and on any of the bridges on Varuna Nala.
Dt.02.07.2010
SP/