Martin K.R vs Union Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 3202 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.25371 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONERS:

      1        MARTIN K.R
               AGED 51 YEARS
               S/O RAPHAEL (LATE) RESIDING AT KATTIPARAMBIL VEEDU,
               MANNAM THURTHU, VARAPPUZHA P.O.683 517.

      2        K.V.MARTIN,
               AGED 52 YEARS
               S/O VARGHESE(LATE) RESIDING AT KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               PUTHENPALLY, VARAPUZHA P.O.-683 517.

      3        K.V.JOSE,
               AGED 65 YEARS
               S/O VARGHESE(LATE) RESIDING AT KALATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
               PUTHENPALLY, VARAPUZHA P.O.-683 517.

      4        C.C.BENEDICT,
               AGED 76 YEARS
               S/O CHEEKKU (LATE), RESIDING AT CHULLIKKATTU,
               PUTHANPALLY, VARAPPUZHA P.O.
               683 517.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
               KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        UNION OF INDIA
               MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT
               BHAWAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110 001,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

      2        THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) AND COMPETENT
               AUTHORITY,
               N.H. 66 (KUTTIPPURAM-EDAPPALLY), ATHANI,
               NORTH PARAVUR-683 513.

      3        ADDL R3

               PROJECT DIRECTOR,
               NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
 WP(C).No.25371 OF 2020       2



             P.I.U., MAVELIPURAM , KAKKANAD,
             KOCHI-682030.
             * ADDL R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/12/2020
             IN I .A. NO. I/2020 IN WP(C) 25371/2020.

             SRI P VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG
             SRI. P.P. THAJUDEEN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25371 OF 2020                 3




                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioners herein are the owners of landed property which are

proposed to be acquired for the widening of National Highway 66 in

Kappikkad-Edappally stretch in Ernakulam district. When the petitioners

came to know about the acquisition proceedings they preferred separate

objections before the 2nd respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is

that the respondents are proceeding with the acquisition proceedings

without considering the objections raised by them under Section 3 C of Act

48 of 1956. They contend that the failure of the 2nd respondent to consider

Exts P2 to P8 objections before proceeding to pass a declaration under

Section 3D of the Act would infringe their constitutional rights under Article

300A of the Constitution of India. It is in the afore circumstances that they

have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibits P2 to P8 objections, and conduct further enquiry (by conducting field inspection in accordance with the revenue records or such other manner of enquiry as this Hon'ble Court deems fit) and pass appropriate orders, within a timeframe to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent not to issue notification under

Section 3D of the Act or take possession until Exhibits P2 to P8 objections are disposed and the orders thereon communicated to the petitioners

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to provide sufficient time to enable the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy under law before possession of petitioners' property is taken on disposal of Exhibits P2 to P8 objections;

2. I have heard Sri.S.Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, the learned

Asst.Solicitor General and also the learned Government Pleader.

3. It appears that pending consideration of the writ petition,

the objections raised by the petitioners have been heard and Exts.P17

and P18 orders have been passed by the Competent Authority Land

Acquisition (CALA). Ext.P19 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent

holding that the challenges raised by the petitioners with regard to the

alignment are within the province of the 3rd respondent.

4. Sri. Vinod Bhat, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that the objections raised by the petitioners as

regards the alignment of the highway was not considered by the

respondents. The Apex Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore

Jute Factory1 has held in unequivocal terms that the National

1 [(2005) 13 SCC 477]

Highways Act confers no such right and there is no right to object to

acquisition of land except on the question of its user. In view of the

said position, the said contention raised by the learned counsel cannot

be accepted.

5. Now that orders have been passed in the objections raised

by the petitioners, nothing further survives in this petition. If the

petitioners are in any way aggrieved, they can exhaust their remedies in

accordance with law. Reserving such right, this writ petition is disposed

of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE ps

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO S.O 675(E) DATED 12.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (RELEVANT PAGES)

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28.4.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 29.4.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 30.4.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 12.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 12.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTION DATED 12.10.2020 FILED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 12.10.2020 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2020 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.10.2020 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO A2-

144/2020/18A/VPZH DATED 9.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P13 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO A2-144/2020/87/VPZH DATED 21.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P14 COPY OF THE NOTICE A2/144/2020/46/VPZH DATED 21.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO A2-144/2020/53/VPZH DATED 21.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.11.2020 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF ORDER NO A2-1762/2020(1) DATED 31.12.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT-SERVED ON IST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P18 COPY OF ORDER NO A2-1762/2020(1) DATED 31.12.2020 OF THE 2ND RSPONDENT

EXHIBIT P19 COPY OF ORDER NO A2-144/2020/18 A/VPZH DATED 07/12/2020 OF RESPONDENT NO.2

EXHIBIT P20 COPY OF THE ORDER DATD 11.11.2020 IN O.A.241/2020 (SZ)OF NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL