Tuesday, August 20, 2019
facebook
Himachal

Posted at: Aug 13, 2019, 7:06 AM; last updated: Aug 13, 2019, 7:06 AM (IST)

Stones laid in 2015, no work on building, bridge yet

Rajiv Mahajan

Nurpur, August 12

A sub-tehsil building and a bridge on the local Gaj rivulet in Nagrota Surian, Jawali, foundations stones of which were laid by the then Chief Minister, Virbhadra Singh, on February 15, 2015, are yet to see the light of day.

High-velocity winds had damaged the foundation stone, along with the plaque of the Gaj rivulet bridge, a few years ago whereas the site for the sub-tehsil building has become a dumping site and a shelter for stray cattle.

As per information, the Revenue Department had proposed the construction of the sub-tehsil building at Nagrota Surian at a cost of Rs 35 lakh, but its construction never started. The identified site is without any parking space. Sources said after the state government came to power, the project was shelved. It was decided that the existing two-room building of the sub-tehsil would be reconstructed.

The former Chief Minister had also laid the foundation stone of Gaj rivulet bridge on Nagrota Surian-Chalwara-Farian link road the same day, but its construction could not be started by the PWD.

The proposed 828-m bridge had to be constructed at an estimated cost of Rs 58 crore. After its construction, the distance between Jawali and surrounding gram panchayats Ghar-Jarot, Nagrota-Surian, Haar and Chalwara will reduce by 8 to 10 kilometres. Similarly, the distance between Jarot panchayat and Nagrota Surian will reduce to merely 2 kilometre. At present, the residents of this panchayat have to travel 10 kilometer to reach Nagrota Surian town. Raman Kumar, Sushma, Hem Chand, Om Parkash and Rakesh, residents of Jarot said in emergency the people had to cross the rivulet to reach Nagrota Surian, which was risky in monsoon. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Jawali division, Jagtar Singh said the construction of the proposed bridge could not be started as no funds were allocated for the project. He admitted that construction on the identified site, where the bridge had been proposed, was practically not feasible.

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On