PMGSY road damaged due to lack of drainage; villagers forced to risk their lives on a temporary wooden bridge, while another bridge built nearby is alleged to serve little practical purpose
Narayanpur: An unusual picture of rural development has emerged from Khadkagaon ‘B’ Panchayat in Narayanpur district, where villagers are being forced to depend on a makeshift wooden bridge for daily travel, even as a permanent bridge constructed nearby at a cost of around ₹4.78 lakh has raised questions over its location and utility.
The situation has triggered concern among local residents, who allege that while a permanent structure was needed at the point where the road has been damaged by water runoff, a concrete bridge has instead been constructed at a location where there appears to be little requirement for either drainage or regular public movement.
Villagers Depend on Makeshift Wooden Bridge
The road constructed under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) has reportedly become a source of inconvenience for residents of Khadkagaon ‘B’ Panchayat.
A portion of the road has been washed away due to the absence of an adequate drainage arrangement. According to villagers, only a cement structure had been created at the location instead of a properly completed bridge or culvert.
During heavy rains, soil on both sides of the structure was washed away, causing the road section to sink and leaving behind a large gap.
With no immediate permanent solution, villagers constructed a temporary wooden bridge on their own using locally available material. The makeshift structure is now being used by residents for daily commuting.
The condition of the wooden bridge has raised serious safety concerns, particularly for schoolchildren, pedestrians and two-wheeler riders.
Villagers claim that a two-wheeler rider has already met with an accident while attempting to cross the temporary bridge.
“Schoolchildren, two-wheeler riders and ordinary villagers remain afraid while crossing this temporary wooden bridge. Despite the risk, no effective permanent solution has been implemented so far,” villagers alleged.
₹4.78 Lakh Concrete Bridge Raises Questions
The second aspect of the matter has raised even more questions.
On the road connecting Khadkagaon ‘B’ with Borgaon, a permanent culvert has reportedly been constructed by the panchayat at a cost of approximately ₹4.78 lakh.
Villagers allege that the bridge has been constructed at a location where there is currently no apparent requirement for water drainage or regular public movement.
According to residents, the contrast is particularly striking: at the location where the road has actually been damaged and villagers need a permanent crossing, they are relying on a risky wooden structure, while a concrete bridge has been constructed elsewhere.
Villagers have also reportedly raised objections with the village sarpanch and panchayat secretary regarding the construction.
They have questioned both the utility and quality of the structure and demanded that the work and expenditure be examined.
Construction Site Mentioned as ‘Umesh’s Field’
Another issue has emerged from the information displayed on the construction signboard.
The construction work is reportedly identified as being associated with “Umesh’s field.” However, villagers claim that there is no field belonging to a person named Umesh in the immediate vicinity of the location where the bridge has been constructed.
Based on this claim, residents have raised the possibility that the work may originally have been proposed for another location but was subsequently constructed at the present site.
However, this aspect cannot be conclusively established without examining the official records, technical sanction, work order, site plan and physical inspection of the construction site.
How Was the Technical Approval Granted?
The controversy also raises questions about the monitoring of rural infrastructure projects.
Technical approval, construction supervision and quality monitoring are generally carried out through the concerned engineering and administrative mechanisms. Therefore, villagers are questioning how the project received approval if the structure is indeed located at a site where its utility is limited.
The questions raised by residents include:
- Was the bridge constructed at the location mentioned in the original proposal?
- What was the basis for selecting the present construction site?
- Was a technical survey conducted before construction?
- What was the purpose of the ₹4.78 lakh structure?
- Was the construction completed according to the approved design and technical specifications?
- Why was a permanent solution not provided at the location where the PMGSY road has been damaged?
- Does the work correspond with the details mentioned on the construction signboard?
These questions can only be conclusively answered through an examination of official documents and a technical inspection.
One Road, Two Contrasting Pictures
The situation in Khadkagaon ‘B’ presents a striking contrast in rural infrastructure.
On one side, villagers are using a makeshift wooden bridge and putting their safety at risk simply to cross a damaged section of the road.
On the other side, a ₹4.78 lakh permanent bridge stands at a location that villagers allege has little practical use.
The issue has therefore become more than just a question of road connectivity. It has raised broader concerns about planning, site selection, technical approval, quality monitoring and the utilisation of public funds.
Villagers are now demanding an impartial inspection of both locations and clarity from the concerned authorities regarding the purpose, approval and expenditure associated with the permanent bridge.
A detailed investigation based on government records, technical documents and an on-site assessment would be necessary to establish whether the allegations regarding the location, utility and quality of the construction have merit.
