V.M. Muhammed vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18472 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           V.M. MUHAMMED,
           AGED 62 YEARS
           S/O ALIKUTTY MUSSALIAR, KALATHIL HOUSE, KUTTIADI AMSOM
           DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE-673 508.

           SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR
           KUM.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
           SMT.REVATHY P. MANOHARAN
           SRI.S.RAJEEV



RESPONDENTS:

    1      STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

    2      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
           LSG DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

    3      THE REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY,
           M/S ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 2ND
           FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, MAHAKAVI VAILOPPILLI ROAD,
           KOCHI-682 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

    4      DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           KOZHIKODE, WAYANAD ROAD, CIVIL STATION, ERANJIPPALAM,
           KOZHIKODE-673 020.

    5      PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
           REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT
           SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001

 ADDL. 6   SAJITHA, AGED 42 YEARS
           W/O. ATTAKOYATHANGAL, MAKKEENTAVIDA HOUSE,
           KUTTIYADI P. O., CALICUT, PIN - 673 508.

 ADDL. 7   NAJILA
           AGED 43 YEARS
 WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021
                                     2

            W/O. ASLAM, MAKKEENTAVIDA HOUSE, KUTTIYADI,
            CALICUT, PIN - 673 508.

            ADDL. R6 AND R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
            DATED 13.07.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN WPC 3919/2021.

           SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SC.
           SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN, GP.
           SRI.M.C.JOHN.




      THIS    WRIT       PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   08.09.2021,      THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021
                               3

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is in possession of 10 Ares of

land, comprised of in Sy.No.48/3 (Re.Sy.No.48/80) of the

Kuttiadi Village, Vadakara; and that he is aggrieved by the

alignment now proposed by the third respondent, for the

purpose of construction of the "Kuttiadi Bypass" starting

from Kuttiadi - Perambra Road.

2. According to the petitioner, he had requested the

third respondent to consider an alternative alignment, so that

his property and an ongoing commercial construction thereon

could have been saved without disturbing anybody else; and

he alleges that in spite of the fact that he had the said

request validly, it has not been yet considered by the

competent Authority.

3. The petitioner says that, therefore, he approached

this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.14026 of 2019, which

culminated in Ext.P4 judgment, whereby, he was directed to

be given an opportunity of being heard; but alleges that, in WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021

spite of the specific directions in Ext.P4, none of the

materials relied upon by the competent Authority had been

given to him when the hearing was conducted, and therefore,

that this exercise was reduced to a mere eyewash. He thus

prays that the alignment now proposed by the respondents be

directed to be redone in a manner so as to avoid his property.

4. The afore submissions of Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the

learned counsel for the petitioner, were vehemently refuted

by Sri.K.V.Manoj Kumar, the learned standing counsel for

the third respondent. He submitted that a statement has been

filed, wherein, Annexure R3(1) sketch of the alignment has

been produced and argued that the allegation of the

petitioner, that his request had not been considered at all, is

wholly untrue because it was, in fact, assessed carefully and

the original alignment was, consequently, shifted 2.6 meters

towards North, so as to substantially save his property. The

learned standing counsel then added that the original request

of the petitioner was to shift the alignment 4 meters towards

North, but that this could not be acceded to because this

would entail demolition of other residential buildings, as also WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021

the change of the entire alignment of the road. He submitted

that, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot have any

case against Annexure R3(1), particularly because it has been

settled with the assistance of the competent experts and

foremost agencies who are engaged in the construction of

roads and other infrastructural facilities.

5. In reply, Sri.P.G.Jayashankar conceded that Annexure

R3(1) has modified the alignment to some extent, but prayed

that, since his client's request for changing it to 4 meters

towards North has not been fully acceded to, the reliefs

sought for in this writ petition be granted.

6. Sri.M.C.John, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 6 and 7, submitted that the prayer of the

petitioner in this writ petition is extremely malicious because

he wants to solely save his his property, but at the cost of his

client's. He submitted that this has been clearly stated so in

Ext.P7 and therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

7. When I evaluate the afore rival contentions very

carefully, I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021

petitioner's request. This is because, it has been well settled

by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, through a

series of judgments, that in matters which involve expert

opinion and policy decision making, this Court substitute its

wisdom for that of the experts or the competent Authorities.

Since Annexure R3(1) has been issued taking note of the

petitioner's request and acceding to it partially, I cannot find

merit in the further grievance impelled by the petitioner,

particularly when he does not contest that if the alignment is

shifted as requested by him, it would cause detriment to

various other persons and their properties. It is needless to

say that the petitioner's property cannot be saved by causing

detriment to other similarly situated persons.

In the afore circumstances, I dismiss this writ petition

without acceding to the prayers of the petitioner.

At this time, Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that this Court may leave liberty

to his client to invoke all his other remedies, including for the

purpose of valuation of his property. WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021

It goes without saying that the petitioner is entitled to

all eligible remedies, which are statutorily sanctioned and it

does not require any specific order from this Court for him to

invoke the same.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3919/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 24.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE KUTTIADI GRAMA PANCHAYATH

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 1031/2019/RD DATED 12.4.2019

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.2.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS, ALON WITH ITS ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 29.2.2020

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.7.2020 IN WPC NO 14026 OF 2019

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 24.7.2020 PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER, ADDRESSED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE DATED 23.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.12.2020 BEARING FILE NO DCKKD/5538/2020-B2 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.3.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.5.2020 BEARING NO RBDCK/R1/ACT/VOL XI/2020/931 WP(C) NO. 3919 OF 2021

ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT ANNEXURE:

Annexure R3(1) TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT PLAN AFTER SHIFTING 2.6 METERS.