'Don't Raise Your Voice, I'm an MLA': Jamwadi Causeway Dispute Turns Ugly Amid Abuse Allegation
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
Summarized by AI; it may make mistakes. Check important info
A dispute over a self-funded causeway built by farmers in Jamwadi village of Junagadh's Malia Hatina taluka escalated on Tuesday after a heated exchange broke out between local farmers and Mangrol MLA Bhagwanji Kargathiya during a site inspection by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Prant Officer).
The inspection was carried out following complaints over the causeway, which was constructed around five years ago by 29 farmers on their privately owned land to improve access to their agricultural fields.
Farmers Oppose Move to Demolish Causeway
The farmers claimed the causeway was built entirely at their own expense and has not caused any damage to neighbouring farms.
They said all 29 landowners had submitted written undertakings accepting responsibility if the structure caused any future damage. They also claimed that despite nearly 30 inches of rainfall within 24 hours recently, the causeway did not result in waterlogging or flooding.
Heated Exchange During Inspection
During the inspection, farmers reportedly urged the MLA not to seek demolition of the structure if a new bridge was not being provided.
According to the farmers, Kargathiya responded by telling them not to raise their voices because he was an MLA. They also alleged he used inappropriate language during the exchange.
Responding to the allegations, the MLA said the words he used were part of the local dialect and should not be interpreted as abusive.
MLA Claims Causeway Affecting Other Farmers
Kargathiya said he has repeatedly raised the issue before the district grievance committee, alleging that the causeway constructed by a handful of farmers has adversely affected more than 50 farmers.
He said the inspection was conducted based on his complaint and maintained that the causeway's height should not exceed one metre, as directed in an earlier administrative order. If found to be higher than the permitted limit, appropriate action would be taken, he added.
The matter is now expected to be decided based on the findings of the Prant Officer's inspection.
