Kerala High Court
Venugopalan P.V vs Union Of India on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.35389 OF 2019(W)
PETITIONERS:
1 VENUGOPALAN P.V
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, PAVAN VEETTIL, PANTHALAYANI,
KOYILANDI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673305.
2 RADHA,
AGED 59 YEARS
D/O.KELAPPA KURUP, ELAYADATH MEETHAL HOUSE,
MODDADI NORTH P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673307.
3 RADHA.T,
AGED 68 YEARS
D/O.KANARAN, VADAKKE ELAYADATH, SREEKRIPA,
MODDADI NORTH P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673307.
4 P.NARAYANAN,
S/O.CHATHU, ATTAYAL KUNI PARAYANKANDY, VIYYOOR,
KOLLAM P.O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673307.
BY ADVS.
SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
SRI.JAI GEORGE
SMT.P.ANITHA
SMT.K.O.LEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ROAD ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS,
PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2 MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
PARIVAHAN BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI- 110001.
3 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
G5 AND 6, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI- 110075,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 2
4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NO.2/2175-B,
KRISHNA KRIPA, AISWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOZHIKODE- 673020, KERALA STATE.
5 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS),
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MUSEUM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695033.
6 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOZHIKODE- 673020.
8 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
(LAND ACQUISITION-NH 17) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P.O.,
KOZHIKODE- 673020.
9 KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY,
MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOYILANDI P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN- 673305,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
10 M/S.INTER CONTINENTAL CONSULTANTS AND TECHNOCRATS
PVT.LTD.,
A-8, GREEN PARK, NEW DELHI- 110016.
R3, R4 & R5 BY SMT.I. SHEELA DEVI, CGC
R4 BY ADV. SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN
R4 BY ADV. SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE
R9 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
R10 BY ADV. SMT.NEELANJANA NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).26775/2020(V), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.26775 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONERS:
1 GIREESH BABU C.H.,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN,
PRASEETHA NIVAS, GOPALAPURA,
MOODADI P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673307.
2 UNNIKRISHNAN C H
S/- GOPALAN,
AGED 55 YEARS
PRASEETHA NIVAS, GOPALAPURAM,
MOODADI P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673307.
3 NARAYANAN V E
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O RAMUNNI,
VADAKKE ELAYADATH SREEKRIPA, MODDADI NORTH P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673307.
4 GEETHA P
AGED 61 YEARS
D/O GOVINDAN,
LOVE SHORE,
PERUMAL THAZHE, THIKKODI P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673529.
5 BALAN O K
AGED 68 YEARS, S/O ACHUTHAN,
LOVE SHORE, PERUMAL THAZHE,
THIKKODI P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673529.
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 4
6 P PRAMEELA
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O RAMUNY, PRATHEEKSHA, PANTHALAYINI P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673305.
7 BABU K K
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O SANKARAN, SANDHYAM, PARAVANTHADATHIL,
PANTHALAYINI P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673305.
8 MRIDULA M
AGED 60 YEARS
D/O APPUKUTTYNAIR,
AMMOSSAM VEETTIL, KOLLAM P O,
KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673307.
9 SATHI RAJAGOPAL
AGED 55 YEARS
D/O CHATHUKUTTY,
SAI SADAN, KOLLAM P O, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673307.
10 RUGMINI
AGED 52 YEARS
D/O KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
ANJALY, KOLLAM P O,
KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673307.
11 PRASANNA
AGED 63 YEARS
D/O KELAPPAN, THENAYANKULANGARA
EDAKKULAM P O, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673306.
12 RAVEENDRAN NAIR T K
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O CHANTHUKUTTY, THENYANKULANGARA, EDAKKULAM P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673306.
13 PADMINIAMMA K P
AGED 74 YEARS, D/O MADHAVAN,
PULLAT HOUSE,
MELUR P O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN-673306.
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 5
BY ADVS.
SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
SRI.JAI GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
PARIVHAN BHAVAN, 1, PARLIMANET STREET,
NEW DELHI-110001.
2 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA G5 & 6,
SECTOR-10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110075,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
3 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NO.2/2175-B,
KRISHNA KRIPA,
AISWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION P O,
KOZHIKODE-673020., KERALA STATE.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
(LAND ACQUISITION-NH 17) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION P O,
KOZHIKODE-673020.
6 KOYILANDY MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOYILANDI P O,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673305,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV.I.SHEELA DEVI, SC
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL
R2 & R3 BY M.V.KINI & CO.
ADV. SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE
R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).35389/2019(W), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 6
"CR"
JUDGMENT
Under challenge in these writ petitions are the notifications issued
under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 ("the Act" for short)
and the subsequent proceedings, which include the fixing of the alignment
of the Koyilandy Bypass from Nandi to Chengottukadavu from km 214 to km
225 as part of four laning of NH- 66 from Thalappady km 17 to Vengalam
km 230 in the State of Kerala.
2. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and Exhibits in W.P.
(C).No.35389 of 2019 shall be referred to.
3. The Central Government by Ext.P12 notification dated
08.11.2017 issued under Section 3A of the Act declared its intention to
acquire land for the purpose of widening of NH-17 stretch starting from km
185.980 to km 260.200 in Kozhikode district. The substance of notification
was published in two local newspapers as contemplated under the Act. The
land under acquisition was surveyed and marked under Section 3B and the
objectors were heard. Later, Ext.P14 declaration was issued under Section
3D of the Act on 27.12.2018, consequent to which the land vested in the
Central Government. Thereafter Ext.P16 additional notification was issued
under Section 3A of the Act on 08.03.2019 for clearly and exactly identifying
the properties covered under the original notification. Ext.P16 however, did
not involve any land which was not covered under Exhibit P12. Pursuant to
the same, Ext.P17 public notice was issued under Section 3G(3) inviting
claims from persons interested in the land to be acquired. Immediately
thereafter the instant writ petitions were filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to
Exhibit P12, Exhibit P14, Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P17 notifications and
quash the portion of notification in respect of Quilandi Bypass Road, from
Nandi to Chenkkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 as illegal.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to
acquire the land for the 4-laning of NH -17 (New NH-66) in Kerala State
equally from both sides from the central line of the existing National
Highway instead of Quilandi Bypass Road.
iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to
acquire the petitioners' land for the 4-laning of NH-17 (New NH-66), from
Nandi to Chenkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 without conducting the
Environment and Social Impact Assessment and a comparative cost
benefit analysis.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Government, as
early as in the year 1972, had acquired land for widening the existing
highway to 30 metres. While carrying out the acquisition as aforesaid, the
local authority had insisted upon the owners of shops on either side of the
highway that they can continue to occupy their buildings only on condition
that they shall voluntarily vacate as and when the highway is required to be
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 8
widened. In view of the above, the shop owners were not permitted to put
up any new construction on the sides of the existing highway. On two
earlier occasions, 3A notification was issued on 2.12.2009 and 8.2.2011, but
the same lapsed due to various reasons. In the year 2011, in view of the
serious objection by the Action Committee formed against the formation of
the bypass, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board intervened in the matter
and the objections were forwarded to the National Highway Authorities.
Later, based on complaints filed by the local residents, the Petitions
Committee of the Kerala Legislative Assembly had conducted a local enquiry
and they had submitted Ext.P7 report on 23.07.2012 wherein it is stated that
no proper study was conducted regarding the social as well as environmental
impact of the project. The alignment of the bypass was fixed without taking
note of the fact that about 532 buildings would have to be demolished. As a
matter of fact, if the width of the existing highway is increased to 45 metres
only about 215 buildings and 22 houses need to be demolished. The
petitioners would contend that as per the IRC Code 73:1980, the normal
road width for built up areas in plain and rolling terrain is 30 metres and if
the said criteria is adopted, there was no need to opt for a bypass. It is
further contended that the respondents are proceeding with the
constructions without obtaining an Environmental Clearance. Ignoring all
these aspects, Ext.P12 notification was issued on 22.11.2017 and though the
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 9
petitioners mounted a challenge before the National Green Tribunal, their
application was dismissed as premature. According to the petitioners, as per
the provisions of the Act, a declaration under Section 3D has to be published
within one year from the date of publication of Ext.P12 notification. In the
instant case, the same was not done. Without taking note of the fact that
original notification had lapsed, the 8th respondent has published a public
notice under Section 3G(3) of the Act directing the affected persons to
appear before him. It is contended that the entire procedure adopted by the
respondents are irregular and illegal warranting interference by this Court.
5. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated
that a transparent procedure was adopted before issuing the 3A notification.
The DPR consultant prepared a draft feasibility report and a draft alignment,
which was presented before the persons concerned and it was after
incorporating the required changes that the final alignment was fixed. The
District Collector after complying with the formalities forwarded the same to
the Government and it was only after completing the entire process that the
3A notification was issued. Immediately thereafter, the officers conducted a
survey and inspection under Section 3B and the alignment was again
rechecked by superimposing the 45 metres proposed road on the Field
Measurement Book maintained by the revenue authorities. An additional
notification under Section 3A had to be issued as some of the survey
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 10
numbers were found left out at the time of issuance of the original
notification. However, no additional land was involved warranting the
issuance of a fresh 3A notification. Every person interested in the land was
permitted to raise his objections to the user of the land for the purpose. It is
further contended that the Koyilandy Bypass has a total length of 11 km and
is intended to bypass the busy Koyilandy town. The Right of Way in the
existing National Highway is 18.30 metres on an average and it passes
through the heart of the town. If the width is enhanced to 45 metres, more
than 550 buildings most of which are commercial in nature, would be
affected. In addition, about 100 to 150 residential buildings would be
affected in the villages of Nandi, Moodai, Arakkulam and Koyilandy town. All
these aspects were taken note of before proceeding to issue notification
declaring the intention to acquire the land. It is further stated that as per
the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Environment
and Forest dated 22.08.2013, expansion of National Highways upto 100 km
involving additional right of way or land acquisition upto 40 m and 60 m
realignment or bypasses are exempted from the purview of the earlier
notification and therefore, no environmental clearance is required to be
obtained. It is further stated that the assertion made by the petitioners that
the original notification had ceased to have any effect as the declaration of
acquisition under Section 3D was not published within a period of one year
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 11
cannot have any application. It is contended that a certain Sri.Raveendran
and three others had filed W.P.(C).No.39315 of 2017 before this Court and
by an order dated 20.07.2018, this Court had ordered that no coercive action
shall be taken with the present alignment of Koyilandy Bypass. The said
interim order was modified only on 19.11.2018 by ordering that the taking of
possession shall be done only after complying with the due procedure in
terms of Act 43 of 1956. It is contended that the stay order was in force till
19.11.2018 and if the 62 days period is exempted, the 3D notification issued
on 27.12.2018 is well within time. It is further stated that the land which is
included in the alignment, which after the measurements were found to be
needed for the project and which was missed out in the 3D notification, was
again notified under Section 3A of the Act and all the objections received
under Section 3C were considered.
6. I have heard Smt.Daisy A Philipose, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Bidan Chandran, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the NHAI, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned ASGI and
Smt. Mable C. Kurian, the learned Government Pleader.
7. The scheme of acquisition enshrined in the Act 48 of 1956 is
that once the Central Government is satisfied that any land is required for
the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway
or part thereof, then, it shall declare its intention to acquire such land by
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 12
issuing a notification in the official Gazette giving brief description of the
land. The substance of the notification is also required to be published in two
local newspapers of which one has to be in a vernacular language. Any
person interested in the land can file an objection within 21 days from the
date of publication of the notification in the official Gazette. Such objection is
required to be made to the Competent Authority in writing. Thereafter, the
Competent Authority is required to give the objector an opportunity of
hearing either in person or through a legal practitioner. This exercise is to be
followed by an order of the Competent Authority either allowing or rejecting
the objections. Where no objection is made to the Competent Authority in
terms of S.3C(1) or where the objections made by the interested persons
have been disallowed, the Competent Authority is required to submit a
report to the Central Government, which shall then issue a notification in the
official Gazette that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes
mentioned in S.3A(1). On publication of declaration under S.3D(1), the land
vests absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Sub-
section (3) of S.3D provides that where no declaration under Sub-section (1)
is published within a period of one year from the date of publication of
notification under S.3A(1), the said notification shall cease to have any
effect. By virtue of proviso to S.3D(3), the period during which any action or
proceeding taken in pursuance of notification issued under S.3A(1) remains
stayed by a Court shall be excluded while computing the period of one year
specified in S.3D(3).
8. Section 3C of the Act provides for hearing of objections. It
reads as follows:
"(1) Any person interested in the land may, within
twenty-one days from the date of publication of the
notification under sub-section (1) of section 3A, object to the
use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in
that sub-section.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be
made to the competent authority in writing and shall set out
the grounds thereof and the competent authority shall give
the objector an opportunity of being heard, either in person
or by a legal practitioner, and may, after hearing all such
objections and after making such further enquiry, if any, as
the competent authority thinks necessary, by order, either
allow or disallow the objections. (emphasis supplied)
What the provision says is that a person interested in the land can
raise objection within 21 days from the date of publication of the notification
under Section 3A, but the objections shall be limited to the use of the land
for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that sub section. In Competent
Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory1, the Apex Court had occasion to
hold that under Act 48 of 1956, there is no right to object to acquisition of
land under Section 3C of the Act except on the question of its user.
9. In the case on hand, the first contention raised by the
1 [(2005) 13 SCC 477]
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 14
petitioners is that the respondents have acted with malafides in the sense
that instead of opting to widen the existing highway to a width of 30 metres,
they have chosen to build a bypass having a length of about 11 km.
According to the petitioners, if the existing highway was widened, the
damage that is likely to be caused would be minimum. I find no merit in the
submissions advanced. It has come out from the submissions that the
existing highway passes through the heart of Koyilandy town. Admittedly,
there are commercial buildings on either side of the existing highway, which
is very congested at present. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that
the average width of the existing highway is about 19 metres. To alleviate
the unsafe conditions and to remove the congestion of the existing road
network, the highway is required to be widened to a width of 45 metres. The
expert body, after interaction with the stakeholders and in tune with the
provisions of the Act, have decided to construct a bypass. The question is
whether the petitioners can dictate the manner in which the alignments are
to be fixed. The Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Dr. Kushala
Shetty and Ors.2, had reminded that the NHAI is a professionally managed
statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance
of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways
and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for
2 [(2011) 12 SCC 69]
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 15
development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the
field of highways. It comprises persons having vast knowledge and expertise
in the field of highway development and maintenance. NHAI prepares and
implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National
Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project
reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity
of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all
equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project
and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public
interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. Unless
the alignment fixed is found to be ex - facie contrary to the mandate of law
or tainted due to mala fides, the court has no jurisdiction to interfere.
10. The 2nd contention advanced by the petitioners is the failure of
the respondents to get an environmental clearance. As per the notification
dated 22.08.2013, the expansion of a National Highway project needs prior
environmental clearance in case (a) the expansion of the National Highway
Project is greater than 100 km and (b) it involves additional right of way or
land acquisition greater than 40 metres on existing alignments and 60
metres on realignments or bypasses. In the case on hand, as the width of
the bypass is just 45 metres, there is no requirement to obtain prior
environmental clearance. This aspect has been taken note of by the Apex
Court in National Highways Authority of India v. Pandarinathan
Govindarajulu and another3. Para No.7 of the judgment is extracted
below for convenience.
"7. A plain reading of Item 7(f) to the Notification dated 22.08.2013
would make it clear that expansion of a National Highway project needs prior
environmental clearance in case (a) expansion of the National Highway
project is greater than 100 km and (b) it involves additional right of way or
land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60
meters on realignments or bypasses. There is no ambiguity in the above
provision as it gives no scope for any doubt. The distance of 100 km is
important as expansion of National Highways below 100 km needs no prior
environmental clearance. If the project involves expansion of a National
Highway greater than 100 km, prior environmental clearance would be
required only if it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater
than 40 metres on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or by
passes."
11. In that view of the matter, the said contention advanced by the
petitioners cannot be accepted.
12. The next contention advanced by the petitioners is that the
notification under Section 3D was published only after a year from the date
of publication of Section 3A notification and therefore the said notification
shall cease to have any effect. Section 3D of the Act provides for declaration
of acquisition. The said provision reads as follows:
3D. (1) Where no objection under sub-section (1) of section 3C has
been made to the competent authority within the period specified
3 [(2021) SCC online SC 28]
therein or where the competent authority has disallowed the
objection under sub-section (2) of that section, the competent
authority shall, as soon as may be, submit a report accordingly to
the Central Government and on receipt of such report, the Central
Government shall declare, by notification in the Official Gazette,
that the land should be acquired for the purpose or purposes
mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 3A.
(2) On the publication of the declaration under sub-section (1), the
land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all
encumbrances.
(3) Where in respect of any land, a notification has been published
under sub-section (1) of section 3A for its acquisition but no
declaration under sub-section (1) has been published within a
period of one year from the date of publication of that
notification, the said notification shall cease to have any effect:
Provided that in computing the said period of one year,
the period or periods during which any action or proceedings
to be taken in pursuance of the notification issued under sub-
section (1) of section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall
be excluded.
(4) A declaration made by the Central Government under sub-section
(1) shall not be called in question in any court or by any other
authority. (emphasis supplied)
The proviso to Section 3D (3) says that while computing the period of
one year, the period during which any action or proceedings taken in
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 18
pursuance to the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3A is
stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. The words used are "any
action or proceeding" and a wide interpretation is to be given. If by the
orders issued by the Court, the NHAI is interdicted from initiating any action
or proceeding, the proviso will be attracted and the said period will have to
be excluded. In the case on hand, Ext.P12 notification under Section 3A
was issued on 08.11.2017. This Court by Ext.P20 order dated 20.07.2018
had ordered that further coercive steps shall not be taken by the
respondents on the strength of the modified alignment. This, in my opinion,
will amount to an interdiction on the NHAI to proceed further with any action
or proceeding that they are bound to initiate in pursuance of the
notification. It was only on 19.09.2018 that the said order was modified by
directing that further steps of dispossessing the petitioners from the
properties in question or taking possession of the properties shall be done
only after complying with all due procedure in terms of the National
Highways Act. Proviso to Section 3D(3) says that in computing the period of
one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be
taken in pursuance of notification issued under Sub Section (1) of Section 3A
is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. I am not impressed with
the contention advanced by Smt. Daisy A.Philipose that the entire
proceedings have not been stayed and hence the benefit of the proviso
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 19
cannot be extended to the respondents. I hold that the declaration was well
within time if the period of stay was excluded and the contentions forcefully
advanced by the learned counsel should fail.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that
the petitioners have not made out any grounds for interference.
These writ petitions fail and will stand dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 20
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35389/2019
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
17.06.2011, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
12.07.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE ACTION
COMMITTEE AGAINST THE FORMATION OF
KOYILANDI BYPASS ROAD BEFORE THE KERALA
STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.12.2011, ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD TO THE ACTION
COMMITTEE AGAINST THE FORMATION OF
KOYILANDI BYPASS ROAD.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE LETTER DATED
22.03.2012, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
10.02.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF THE
KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON
10.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE REPORT DATED 23.07.2012, SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONS COMMITTEE BEFORE THE KERALA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
13.09.2012, ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
28.09.2012 ISSUED BY THE 10TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 21
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
15.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.09.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
S.O.NO.355(E) PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY DATED 28.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.05.2018
IN O.A.NO.318 OF 2018 ON THE FILES OF THE
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE NOTIFICATION NO.S.O.6385(E) DATED
27.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT
S.O.NO.1268(E) PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI
DAILY DATED 29.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF 3G
NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN
HINDU DAILY DATED 09.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
02.08.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN
2017 BY THE DPR CONSULTANT.
EXHIBIT P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
20/07/2018 IN WPC.NO.39315 OF 2017.
EXHIBIT P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
19/09/2018 IN WPC.NO.39315 OF 2017
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 22
EXHIBIT R1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION
DATED 7/1/2020
EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF 3A NOTIFICATION DATED
8.3.2019-SO1268(E)
EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF 3D NOTIFICATION DATED
10.1.2020-SO180(E)
EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF 3D NOTIFICATION DATED
21.1.2020-SO810(E)
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 23
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26775/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10.02.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
SECRETARY OF THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
CONVENED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON
10.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
REPORT DATED 23.7.2012, SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONS COMMITTEE BEFORE THE KERALA
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/09/2018
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SO
NO.355(E) PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY
DATED 22.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
NOTIFICATION NO.SO6385(E) DATED 22.12.2018
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF SO
NO.1268(E) PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY
DATED 29.5.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF 3G
NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN
HINDU DAILY DATED 9.11.2019
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.8.2017
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
DETAILED PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN 2017
BY THE DPR CONSULTANT
WP(C).Nos.35389/2019 & 26775/2020 24
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
20.7.2018 IN WPC NO.39315/2017
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
19.9.2018 IN WPC NO.39315/2017
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
4.12.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 8TH PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
