D.Suku vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4248 Ker

W.P.(C) No. 29159/2011                 :1:


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                       &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

            FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.29159 OF 2011(S)


PETITIONER/S:

        1        D.SUKU, S/O. DAMODARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU,
                 TC.5/204, PEROORKADA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

        2        K.MOHANAN, S/O.KUNJAN VARUVILAKATH VEEDU,
                 TC.5/245, PEROORKADA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

        3        G.SURENDRAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN,
                 K.P.9/51, SANDHYA BHAVAN, A.K.G.NAGAR ROAD,, HARVIPURAM,
                 PEROORKADA P.O.,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

        4        S.ALEXANDER S/O.SAMUEL, KARAKATT VEEDU
                 KARAKULAM PO, KARAKULAM, VAZHAYILA.

        5        G.MOHANDAS SO.GOPALAN, ANAD BUILDING
                 PEROORKADA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.R.S.KALKURA
                 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
                 SRI.M.S.KALESH
                 SRI.V.VINAY MENON

RESPONDENT/S:

        1        STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
                 SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

        2        THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE
 W.P.(C) No. 29159/2011               :2:


                DEPARTMENT, SECRETRIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

        3       KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, TC.4/1654
                MAYOORAM, NO.7, BELLHEAVEN GARDENS,, KAWDIAR P.O.,
                TRIVANDRUM-695 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY.

        4       THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT AUTHRORITY
                VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 010,
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRTARY.

        5       THE CITY CORPORATION OT TRIVANDRUM,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, CORPORATION OFFICE,
                CORPORATION BUILDINGS,, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
                695 001.

        6       THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
                GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETRIAT,,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

        7       THE TRIVANDRUM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD.,
                HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ILFS FINANCIAL, CENTRE,
                PLOT C-22, G.BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX,, MUMBAI-400 051
                REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

        8       EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD AND BRIDGES
                DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT OF
                KERALA, TRIVANDRUM-695 033.

        9       ADDL. R9 & R10 IMPLEADED:
                RAJAN,
                PROPRIETOR, MAHARAJA JEWELLERY, PEROORKADA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.

        10      RANI A.B.,
                VARGHESE, PONNATHIL, VP-1/8, A.K.G. NAGAR, PEROORKADA,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005.
                (ADDL.R9 & R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05.02.2021 IN
                I.A. NO. 14615/2013)
                R1, R2, R6 & R8 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE, SR. GOVERNMENT
                PLEADER
                R3 BY ADV. SRI.ZAKIR HUSSAIN, SC, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD
                R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
                R3, R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
                R4 BY SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC.
                R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC
 W.P.(C) No. 29159/2011                :3:


                R7 BY ADV. SRI.REGHU KUMAR
                R7 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON
                R13 BY ADV. SRI.A.AHZAR
                R14 BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G., MANU. V.
                R14 BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD
                R14 BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2021,
      THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 29159/2011               :4:


              Dated this the 5th day of February, 2021.
                           JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioners, who

are residents of Thiruvananthapuram seeking a writ of mandamus

directing the State, its officials and agencies and the Corporation of

Thiruvananthapuram, to implement the development of Corridor No.

10 in its letter and spirit in contemplation of Ext. P1 scheme, Ext. P4

plan prepared by the Public Works Department and Ext. P5 agreement

executed by the Kerala Road Fund Board with the contracting

company, namely the Trivandrum Road Development Company

Limited, the 4th respondent in respect of Peroorkkada-Vazhayila Road

in accordance with the sketch and plan prepared, and a further writ of

mandamus directing respondents 1 to 8 to identify the area acquired

from 1973 onwards for Road development along Corridor No. 10 and

also retrieve and repossess such lands which have been reduced into

the possession of the owners on either side of the road, as per Exts.P1

and P4 and take possession of such properties and for other

consequential and allied reliefs like providing drains, footpath, etc. and

also to appoint an expert body to analyse the improvements to be

made to the roads. That apart, a further direction is sought for

directing the State Government to conduct a vigilance enquiry in

respect of the violation of Ext. P1 Scheme and Ext. P4 plan against

respondents 2 to 6, namely the Principal Secretary, Revenue

Department, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala Road Fund Board,

Thiruvananthapuram, the Trivandrum Development Authority, City

Corporation of Trivandrum, and the Secretary, Public Works

Department.

2. The basic contention advanced by the petitioners is that as

per Ext. P1 scheme, the roads included in the Kawdiar -Peroorkkada-

Vazhayila stretch ie., Corridor No. 10 were to be developed in

accordance with the scheme, and keeping in view of the same alone,

Ext. P4 plan was drawn up by the PWD for the implementation of the

project. It was accordingly that Ext. P5 agreement was entered into by

the Kerala Road Fund Board with the contracting company. In order to

implement the project, the Trivandrum Development Authority was to

acquire the lands and the Kerala Road Fund Board was the

implementing agency. The grievance highlighted by the petitioners is

that the stretch completed, that is the Kowdiar- Peroorkkada, is in

gross violation of the Ext. P1 scheme, Ext. P4 plan, and Ext. P5

agreement. It is submitted that the width of the road at various points

is not as prescribed by the scheme, plan and the agreement and

further that various other facilities such as footpaths, drains etc. have

not been provided or are not of the dimensions prescribed in the

scheme and the allied documents. Petitioners have also alleged that

the contracting company executing the project is colluding with the

influential land owners to compromise and subvert the development of

roads in Corridor No. 10. It is further submitted that though lands

were acquired and compensation was paid to the owners, they are still

in possession of the influential erstwhile owners and the said

properties acquired have not been used for the implementation of the

project.

3. To put it short, the contention advanced is that the said

illegal action on the part of the respondents is deliberate and

intentional only to perpetuate and permit the encroachment upon the

properties by influential persons. According to the petitioners, though

representations were submitted before the State Government in

regard to the illegalities, no action was initiated and the entire actions

of the respondents are violative of the Constitutional guarantees

extended under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.

4. The petitioners have also provided certain details with

respect to the then existing width of the road and the width proposed

to be increased in order to establish that the widening process was not

undertaken in accordance with the scheme and the consequential plan

and the agreement drawn up for the purpose of development of

Corridor No. 10. Even though it is alleged that the width of the road is

not increased consequent to the encroachment upon the same by the

erstwhile land owners, no details were provided in respect of the

encroachments made apart from making certain vague allegations. It

is true that the compensation details, the extent of land acquired and

the details of the owners of the properties are given; but, no materials

are before us to arrive at any definite conclusions of encroachment by

the erstwhile owners. Petitioners have also contended that the action

of the respondents is arbitrary, interfering with the free movement,

and the rights and liberties to enjoy the facilities protected under the

Constitution of India and in contemplation of the scheme and

therefore, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the

Constitution of India.

5. Whatever that be, it is only proper to point out that even

though allegations are made with respect to the encroachment on the

public properties and has pointed out various areas, none of such

persons were impleaded in the array of parties. However, it is seen

that I.A. No. 14615 of 2013 was filed by the petitioners seeking to

implead additional respondents 9 to 21, who are private persons

alleged to be encroached into the Government lands, as early as on

31.10.2013. Even though notice was ordered to the addl. respondents

on27.11.2013, no steps were taken till 09.03.2014 and later even

though steps were taken and some of the parties were served, certain

notices returned with the endorsements 'unclaimed, ''not known', 'no

such addressee' etc. Even though steps were apparently taken to such

persons, the service to such persons remains incomplete and no fresh

steps are taken by the petitioners. It is also relevant to note that after

the posting of 27-11-13, the matter was posted before the Bench only

on 02-02-2021 and no steps are seen taken to bring up the case

before the court.

6. Likewise, though allegations of corruption are made against

the officials of the State, the Kerala Road Fund Board, the TRIDA, the

City Corporation of Trivandrum and the Secretary, Public Works

Department, no persons involved in the alleged corruption are made

parties. Thus to say, the allegations are made in the writ petition

against the Departments of the Government and other

organisations/agencies. It is in the above said background, the reliefs

sought for are to be considered.

7. The Kerala Road Fund Board has filed a counter affidavit

dated 24th February, 2013 refuting the allegations made by the

petitioners. Among other contentions, it is submitted that the

Government, as per order dated 22.08.2003, have accorded sanction

to the TRIDA to acquire 16.95 acres of land within

Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and that necessary orders were issued to

undertake the widening of the identified road links within a short frame

to eliminate the traffic congestions of the city roads by invoking

urgency clause under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

('Act, 1894' for short). it is also unequivocally stated that the required

land as per the approved alignment sketch was taken possession

through the Revenue authority and handed over to the Kerala Road

Fund Board for the development of road during the year 2007 -2008.

Accordingly, in respect of the three main junctions at Kowdiar-

Peroorkada- Vazhayila, improvements were made in tune with the

proposal and widening was done for the connected roads and

therefore, the width of the road at the junctions varies according to

the Junction Improvement Plan. It is also pointed out that the

complaints in respect of the acquisition made from the land owners

were dealt with by the high level committee constituted by the

Government and sorted out, and that the high level committee was

fully empowered to make changes, if any, in the alignment approved

by the Government. That apart, it is stated that the Trivandrum Road

Development Co. Ltd., the 7th respondent is a special purpose vehicle

exclusively constituted for the development of scientifically designed

quality roads and the said company is responsible for designing road,

procurement and mobilisation of resources, execution of quality works

and its maintenance for 15 years from the date of handing over of the

completed project.

8. To the contention advanced by the petitioners that the width

of the road varies from chainage to chainage, it is submitted that an

average width of 20.20 meters has been, more or less, maintained

from Peroorkkada to Vazhayila junction and maximum efforts were

taken to maintain uniform width throughout the corridor as per the

alignment sketch. That apart, it is submitted that the development was

done in different stretches at different times, since the encumbrance

free land could not be made available to the Contracting Company

within the stipulated time as provided in the agreement basically due

to the litigations preferred before courts by the landowners, and the

pending cases, and so also, the time taken to shift many of the

Government offices from the Government lands added to the delay.

9. Above all, it is submitted that the Kerala Road Fund Board

has not made any change in the alignment as alleged by the

petitioners and if any compromise was made in the alignment, that

must have been due to the decision taken by the high level committee

empowered by the State Government. The details with respect to the

acquisition made and utilisation of Government properties and

properties surrendered by other Government organisations are also

provided. However, it is admitted that a property situated near toll

junction owned by one A. Sethukuttyamma was not fully acquired and

taken possession due to a mistake. Though steps have been taken to

acquire the balance required land as per the original proposal, the land

owner preferred W.P.(C) No. 4934 of 2009 before this Court, which

resulted in the delay in acquiring the land. It is significantly contended

that the entire developments were carried out after conducting studies

and the alignment was prepared by an expert consultant in

Transportation Engineering.

10. In sum and substance, it is pointed out that the entire

acquired land was handed over to the contracting company and no

encroachment of Government land was noticed so far, and further that

the development was made by providing footpaths, pedestrian

crossing, road markings, solar based traffic signals and with drain on

both sides of the road. However, it is pointed out that the uniformity

could not be provided to the entire footpath owing to several litigation

filed by the land owners at various points in the corridor. The

predominant submission made is that the allegations made by the

petitioners in regard to corruption etc. of the officers of the

Government and other agencies are baseless and unfounded and

without any supporting materials. Therefore, it was contended that the

petitioners have not made out any case for maintaining a Public

Interest Litigation.

11. The TRIDA has filed a detailed statement in regard to the

acquisition of land carried out by it invoking the urgency clause under

Section 17 of the Act, 1894, that it has handed over the entire

acquired land to the Kerala Road Fund Board and that there was no

manner of default on the part of the said respondent in implementing

the directions of the State Government.

12. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.

Harish Gopinath, Sri. Surin George Ipe, learned Senior Government

Pleader, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jaju Babu for the Kerala Road

Fund Board assisted by Adv. Brijesh Mohan, Sri. N. Nanadkumara

Menon, learned Senior counsel for the Thiruvananthapuram

Corporation assisted by Adv. P.K. Manoj Kumar and the respective

Standing Counsel for the other agencies, and perused the pleadings

and materials on record.

13. The discussion of facts made above would make it clear that

the petitioners have made certain allegations in respect of the failure

on the part of the State Government and other agencies to implement

Ext. P1 scheme drawn up for the purpose of development of the

Thiruvananthapuram city roads. On a perusal of the scheme, it is

evident that the Government, as per the scheme, envisaged various

aspects in regard to the development of Corridor No.10, which includes

flyovers, underpass and broader roads for facilitating six lane and four

lane traffic, bus stops, enhancing greenery by dividing the

development into various stretches and thus, the Kowdiar-

Peroorkkada- Vazhayila was numbered as Corridor No. 10 having a

length of 3.469 kms. with sufficient width to maintain four lane road

from Kowdiar to Peroorkkada and six lane road from Peroorkkada to

Vazhayila and various traffic facilities were also suggested.

14. According to the petitioners, the width as per Ext. P4 plan

formulated for the purpose has not been attained allegedly for the

reason that the implementing and executing agencies colluded with

land owners, and it is further alleged that the lands acquired were still

in the possession of the erstwhile land owners. Even though corruption

allegations are made against the Department and the agencies, no

details are furnished by the petitioners in order to identify whether the

allegations are true or not. It is also significant to note that the nature

of corruption and the manner in which the corruption was practiced is

not specified in the writ petition. In that regard, we are of the definite

opinion that without making any specific pleadings in regard to fraud,

corruption or other malpractices, the court cannot act upon the blunt

allegations made by the petitioners. It is well settled, and only

apposite to say that corruption allegations made against inanimate

bodies, Government Departments and other agencies cannot be taken

into account by the writ court in order to direct any investigation and

that too when the persons allegedly involved in such practices are not

specified and they are not made parties in the writ petition. It is also

worthwhile to note that even though an I.A. was filed to implead the

land owners, who have allegedly colluded with the agencies involved in

the implementation of the project, in spite of the lapse of nearly 7

years from the date of filing of the application, no steps are taken to

complete the service on many of the persons, which disables this

Court to presume and visualise a situation where still the erstwhile

owners of the land are occupying the acquired land.

15. On the other hand, the Kerala Road Fund Board and TRIDA

have filed a counter affidavit and a statement refuting the allegations

made by the petitioners in that regard. But, the petitioners have not

filed any specific reply retorting the affirmations made in the affidavit

filed by the Kerala Road Fund Board supported by the statement of

TRIDA. We also find that in the affidavit filed by the Kerala Road Fund

Board, it is stated that the respondents have made their best efforts to

maintain a uniform width to the Corridor No. 10, and as far as

possible, acquisitions were made to achieve the target. Anyhow, the

allegation with respect to the retention of the acquired land by the

erstwhile owners are stoutly denied by the respective Government

agency and therefore, if at all the petitioners have a contention

deviating from that, it is the duty of the petitioners to prove that the

contentions made by the Kerala Road Fund Board are not correct.

16. It is also important to note that the Kerala Road Fund Board

has admitted that the required land of one A. Sethukuttyamma was

not acquired by mistake, but steps were taken later. However, it could

not be proceeded further due to the proceedings instituted by the land

owner before this Court. In order to substantiate the contentions, the

petitioners are basically relying upon paper reports and other

documents received under the Right to Information Act. In our view,

the said documents would not enure to the absolute benefit of the

petitioners in order to substantiate their contention primarily for the

reason that it is admitted by the Kerala Road Fund Board that it has

acquired the necessary land proposed for the road widening and taken

possession of the same; however, the desired width could not be

achieved for various reasons, in order to provide the facilities as

desired by the respondents in terms of the scheme. Moreover, these

are all basically policies drawn up by the State Government and its

agencies in order to meet-up with its requirements, and the realm of

interference of writ court in such matters would be very bleak,

especially when the circumstances put forth in regard to the factual

aspects are stoutly disputed by the state agency, and the failure on

the part of the petitioners to establish any arbitrariness and other legal

infirmities justifying such interference.

17. However, we make it clear that we have no difference of

opinion in regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners that if

any Government land is encroached upon by any former land owners,

however influential they may be, the State and its Departments are

duty bound to take necessary action to evict them. But, as we have

specified earlier, there is no proof or other evidence so as to rely upon

and issue directions as is sought for by the petitioners to conduct a

vigilance enquiry. That apart, the aspects of width of the road etc. are

the look out of the State and its implementing agencies taking into

account the relevant and required factors to avoid traffic congestions,

accidents and safety of the pedestrians and other road users.

18. That said, we are of the view that if and when there are any

specific and mandatory requirements to be discharged and carried out

by the State, the local bodies and other agencies on basis of statutory

duties and obligations in regard to the regulations of the road, they

are duty bound to carry out the same in accordance with law. But, no

such averments are made by the petitioners, and their grievances are

confined to the alleged failure on the part of the Government to

implement the requirements contained under Ext. P1 scheme, Ext.P4

plan etc. In that view of the matter, we do not think, the petitioners

have made out any case of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the

Constitution of India as alleged in the writ petition.

19. Thus, analysing the facts, law and circumstances, we have

no hesitation to hold that the petitioners have not established a case

to secure the reliefs as are sought for in the writ petition, justifying

this Court to exercise the powers conferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. Needless to say, the writ petition fails and

accordingly, it is dismissed. However, being a Public Interest Litigation

and since certain allegations are made in respect of encroachments

made to the lands acquired by the Government, we deem it fit to

direct the State and its respective Departments to look into the matter

and find out as to whether there is any truth in the allegations so

made as expeditiously as possible, and ultimately if any

encroachments are found, adequate steps shall be taken to vacate

such encroachments and protect the Government lands without fail.

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF TRIVANDRUM AREA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT RELATING TO KAWDIAR-PEROORKADA-VAZHAYILA ROAD-

CORRIDOR NO.10.

EXHIBIT P1 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P1.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER , DATED 16.08.2011.

EXHIBIT P2 (a) REPLY TO EXT. P2, BY THE RESPONDENT, DATED 12.09.2011.

EXHIBIT P2 (b) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2.

EXHIBIT P2(c)              TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P2(a)

EXHIBIT P3                 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF 2003.

EXHIBIT P4                 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2010 ISSUED
                           BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER,

ALONG WITH THE PLANS IN RESPECT OF CORRIDOR 10.

EXHIBIT P4 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER DATED 18.8.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ANNUITY CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 3RD AND 8TH AND 7TH RESPONDENTS.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.8.2010.

EXHIBIT P6(a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.10.2010, EXTENDING THE STAY ISSUED IN W.P.(C) 4934 OF 2010.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.1.2011, ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P8.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21.2.2011 OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P9.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE, DATED 31.12.2003, DISMISSING THE PETITIONS FILED BY MR. B. RAJAN.

EXHIBIT P10 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE, DATED 28.10.2006, DISMISSING THE PETITIONS FILED BY M/S. MAHARAJA COLOUR LAB.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KRF-TCRD/LA/06-07 DATED 17.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ENGINEER, KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD.

EXHIBIT P11 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE MALAYALAM PORTION OF EXT. P11.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THE KOWDIAR PEROORKADA STRETCH OF CORIDOR

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ELECTRIC POST, WHICH PREVIOUSLY STOOD ON THE ROAD-SIDE, STANDING INSIDE THE PROPERTY OF SAROJINI.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.4.2011 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISTION TO AHSOK KUMAR T.B.

EXHIBIT P14 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P14.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.03.2011.

EXHIBIT P15 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P15.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT-SKETCH , CERTIFIED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THE

ACQUISITION OF LAND ALONG CORRIDOR 10, ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 27.10.2006.

EXHIBIT P16 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 27.10.2006 OF EXT. P16.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION

-APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 16.08.2011.

EXHIBIT P17 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION EXT. P17.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 06.09.2011.

EXHIBIT P18 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P18.

EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ENLARGED-SKETCHES OF THE PLAN FOR AMBALAMUKKU-JUNCTION AND VAZHAYILA JUNCTION, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 27.8.2011 TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE METRO MANORAMA DATED 20.01.2011.

EXHIBIT P21 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P21(A)

EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE FLASH DAILY DATED 14.01.2011.

EXHIBIT P22 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P22.

EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 24.01.2011.

EXHIBIT P23 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P23.

EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 25.01.2011.

EXHIBIT P24 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P24.

EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 28.01.2011.

EXHIBIT P25 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P25.

EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 29.01.2011

EXHIBIT P26 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P26.

EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 12.01.2011.

EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 19.02.2011.

EXHIBIT P28 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P28

EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 08.06.2011.

EXHIBIT P29 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P29.

EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE MADHYAMAM DAILY 25.07.2011.

EXHIBIT P30 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P30.

EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 01.07.2009.

EXHIBIT P31 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P31.

EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE MADHYAMAM DAILY 13.09.2010.

EXHIBIT P32 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P32.

EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 19.08.2010.

EXHIBIT P33 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P33

EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 27.08.2010.

EXHIBIT P34 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P34.

EXHIBIT P35 TRUE COPY OF THE FLASH DAILY DAYED 16.08.2011.

EXHIBIT P35 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P35.

EXHIBIT P36 TRUE COPY OF THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 23.08.2011.

EXHIBIT P36 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P36.

EXHIBIT P37 TRUE COPY OFTHE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 24.08.2011.

EXHIBIT P37 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P37

EXHIBIT P38 TRUE COPY OF THE MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 05.11.2010.

EXHIBIT P38 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P38

EXHIBIT P39 TRUE COPY OF THE MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 25.08.2011, IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED.

EXHIBIT P39 (a) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv