Kerala High Court
Sooryakumar. T.R vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 20936 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SOORYAKUMAR. T.R.
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O RAGHAVAN MASTER, THANDAYANPARAMBIL,
EDAMUTTAM.P.O, KODUNGALLOOR,THRISSUR-680568.
BY ADVS.
N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
S.SUJIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD
TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, CENTAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI-
1100001.
2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, DELHI-1100001.
3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA) AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY,
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LANH-17) NH-66,
KUTTIPPURAM-EDAPPALLY, KODUNGALLOOR-680668.
4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY
AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
VII-511-B, NEYTHELI-MAVELIPPURAM ROAD, MAVELIPPURAM,
KAKKANAD-682030.
BY ADVS.
MATHEWS K.PHILIP
SHRI.VISHNU PRADEEP, CGC
SRI. BIMAL K. NATH, SR. GOVT. PLEADER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.20936/2021 -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this court raising a grievance that on account
of the improper alignment adopted by the National Highway Authorities, the
building belongs to a school of which the petitioner is the owner and Manager are
being affected, and are required to be demolished.
2. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner had referred
the sketch produced along with the affidavit dated 29-10-2022 (affidavit in support
of I.A Nos. 4 and 5 of 2022) and submitted that an unnecessary and improper curve
as seen from Ext.P7 has resulted in the school buildings being affected. It was
argued that such an unnecessary curve is actually dangerous and intended to
protect the properties on the other side of the road.
3. The learned Central Government counsel has made available for
perusal of this court the approved plan which appears to indicate that there is
acquisition on both sides of the road and after acquisition the road will form a
straight line and there will be no curve as reflected in Ext.P7. The learned Central
Government Counsel also refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union
of India v. Dr. Kushala Shetty and others; Civil Appeal Nos.2866-
2880/2011 wherein paragraph 24, the court held as follows;
"24. Here, it will be apposite to mention that 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 development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to
experts in the field of highways. It comprises of 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 subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope
of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullify the acquisition of land
and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie
contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in
hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established
nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under
challenge cannot be sustained."
4. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, and 4
and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 3 rd respondent, I am
of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. The
judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above indicate that this court exercises
very little or no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter of alignment of National
Highways which have been finalized by experts having regard to all surrounding
circumstances and ground realities. More over, Ext.P7 sketch does not appear to
reflect the correct position and the approved alignment plan made available for
perusal of this court by the learned Central Government Counsel suggests that after
formation of the road, the road will be in a straight line and the curve as discernible
from Ext.P7 will not be there. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
5. At this stage the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner may be permitted to demolish the building to the extent
required and remove the materials. The learned Central Government Counsel and
the learned Senior Government Pleader have no objection to such a permission
being granted to the petitioner. Accordingly it is directed that the petitioner will be
given 3 weeks time to demolish and remove the portion of the building that is
required for the development of the National Highways.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
AMG
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20936/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 05.07.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS WAS HEARD BY THE
COMPETENT AUTHORITY DATED 23.11.2018, THE
OBJECTIONS WERE REJECTED.
Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER .
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT PLAN.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-04-2022 ISSUED BY
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 13-04-2022 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE PLAN OF THE ALIGNMENT SHOWING THE DEVIATION AT
MY SCHOOL PROPERTY.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4a The true copy of the judgement in SLP 9314-
9315/2022
EXHIBIT R3(a) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/004734/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(b) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/005860/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(c) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/005859/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(d) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/005864/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(e) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/005862/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(f) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/005861/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(g) True copy of the award with LAC No. D2-
VPD/004736/2021, dated 10-06-2022
EXHIBIT R3(h) True copy of the Minutes of the meeting forwarded
by the Assistant Educational Officer along with the
letter No, D/1380/2022, dated 19-01-2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCHOOL
Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCHOOL
Exhibit P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SCHOOL
