Pattathari Jalaja vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6054 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                   WP(C) NO. 19751 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          PATTATHARI JALAJA,
          AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. RAGHAVAN,
          VIPANCHIKA, P.O. PONNIYAM WEST,
          THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670641.
          BY ADVS.
          BINDUMOL JOSEPH
          SRIVIDYA K
          AMRUTHA.P

RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO PUBLIC
          WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2     UNION OF INDIA,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET,
          NEW DELHI-110001.
    3     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE,
          KANNUR ROAD, KANNUR-670002.
    4     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          NATIONAL HIGHWAY, MAHE BYPASS,
          LOTUS, PROVIDENCE WOMEN'S COLLEGE ROAD,
          P.O. MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-673009.
    5     THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
          NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI),
          PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, LOTUS, PROVIDENCE
          WOMEN'S COLLEGE ROAD, P.O. MALAPPARAMBA,
          KOZHIKODE-673009.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.VISHNU PRADEEP
          SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE
          SRI.LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE
          SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY-GP
          SRI.B G BIDAN CHANDRAN-SC
 W.P.(C) No. 19751 of 2022
                                           :2:




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   09.06.2023,            THE   COURT   ON     THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 19751 of 2022
                                   :3:




                     DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
                  =========================
                      W.P.(C).No. 19751 of 2022
                 ==========================
                  Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023

                             JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking that

competent respondents be directed to take up Exts.P1 to P3

representations and to dispose of the same as per law.

2. Sri.Vinodkumar Chambloan - learned counsel for the

petitioner, explained that certain extents of land had been acquired

by the Government of India for the construction of a Bypass for

Mahe town and that an extent of 2.5 cents, remaining on the

eastern and western boundaries of his client's property, has now

been found not required for the same. He asserts that said extent

is being kept unused and, therefore, that he preferred the afore

representations seeking that it be sold to him.

3. Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran - learned Standing Counsel for the

National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), as also the Union of

India, submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable because

the petitioner cannot seek to purchase lands which have been

acquired for the construction of the Bypass. He submitted that,

petitioner's assertion - that 2.5 cents of land is remaining unused

and is not required for the project - is wholly without basis and W.P.(C) No. 19751 of 2022

that acquisition has been made with certain specific objectives in

mind, which are yet to be fully achieved.

4. Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader appearing

for respondents 1 and 3, affirmed the afore submissions of

Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran; adding that, in any event, his clients

cannot take any decision on the representations of the petitioner.

5. When I consider the afore submissions and read Exts.P1 to

P3, it is without doubt that they have been preferred before the

District Collector, the Executive Engineer and other officers of

the National Highways Authority of India. As rightly argued by

Sri.B.G.Bidan Chandran, these Authorities cannot take any decision

on the same because the property does not vest upon them, after

acquisition.

In the afore circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed;

however, leaving liberty to the petitioner to invoke any other

remedy that may be available to her in law.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

anm W.P.(C) No. 19751 of 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19751/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON MARCH 2022 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 3 & 4.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06/05/2022 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.3. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 06/05/2022 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.5.