*M.Lalitha Kumari vs The Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 7098 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7098 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 June, 2023

Kerala High Court

*M.Lalitha Kumari vs The Union Of India on 23 June, 2023

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.V.N.BHATTI
                                    &
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
           Friday, the 23rd day of June 2023 / 2nd Ashadha, 1945
                            WA NO. 1034 OF 2021

    AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 23/07/2021 IN WP(C) 27217/2019 OF THIS COURT

APPELLANT IN W.A./PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C)




1.*M.LALITHA KUMARI,W/O.K.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,AGED 66 YEARS,

ATHIRA,UMAYANELLOOR P.O.,KOLLAM-691 589, *REMOVED.

2.K.C.VIKRAMAN PILLAI, S/O.CHELLAPPAN NAIR,AGED 60,

SECRETARY, KSHETHARA SAMRAKSHNA SAMITHY,

KADAMPATTU, SREE MANDRAMOORTHY TEMPLE,

UMAYANELLOOR P.O., KOLLAM - 691 589

* IST APPELLANT IS REMOVED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DATED
12-6-2023 IN IA NO.1/2023 IN WA NO.1034/2021.

BY ADVS.M/S.BIJU ANTONY ALOOR,K.P.PRASANTH,T.S.KRISHNENDU,ARCHANA SURESH,

HARITHA HARIHARAN & AILIN ELIZABATH FOR APPELLANT


RESPONDENTS IN W.A/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):




1.THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SURFACE
TRANSPORT MINISTRY, NEW DELHI - 110001.

2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 001.

5. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A., N.H.47(66) AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM -
691 001.
 6. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NHAI, TC 36/414
(5), KOYIKKAL VEEDU, KAVU LANE, PALKULANGARA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 024.

7. THE REGIONAL OFFICER, NHAI, TC 86/1036, AMBLY ARCADE, SNNRA-9, PETTA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024.

8* SMEC INDIA PVT. LTD. CONSULTANTS, TC 86/1036, AMBLY ARCADE, SNNRA-9,
PETTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024. *DELETED

9. VALIYAVEETIL MOHAIDEEN MASJID & MADRASA, UMAYANELLOOR P.O., KOLLAM -
691 589.

*R8 IS DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES AS PER ORDER DATED 12-1-2022 IN
IA NO.1/2021 IN W.A.NO.1034/21.

BY DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.S.MANU FOR R1

STANDING COUNSEL SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP FOR R2,R6 & R7

SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND FOR R3 TO R5

     Prayer for interim relief in the Writ Appeal stating that in the
circumstances stated in the appeal memorandum, the High Court be pleased
to pass an interim order staying all proceedings initiated against the
Petitioner's property in R.S.No.260/14, Sy.No.213/12;213/27 and 213/30 of
Thazhuthala Village for acquisition/expansion of the National Highway-47
(now NH 66) between chainage 500-000 to 500-800, pending disposal of the
above Writ Appeal.
     This Writ Appeal again coming on for orders along with connected
cases on 23/06/2023 upon perusing the appeal memorandum and this court's
order dated 14/06/2023, the court on the same day passed the following:
                         S. V. N. Bhatti, C.J.
                                  &
                          Basant Balaji, J.
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                 W.A.No.1034, 971 & 973 of 2021
                  =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
               Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2023

                              ORDER

S. V. N. Bhatti, C.J.

We have heard learned counsel Biju Antony Aloor for the

appellant in W.A.No.1034 of 2021 and Advocate Renoy Vincent for

the appellant in W.A.No.973 of 2021.

2. Apropos the order dated 14.06.2023, the parties have

appeared before the Regional Officer, NHAI, Thiruvananthapuram,

Kerala and presented their case before the Officer. The Regional

Officer placed before us the view/conclusion dated 19.06.2023 on

the representation filed by one K.C. Vikraman Pillai.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant invites our

attention to the letter dated 17.08.2022, which has been, according

to the counsel, a result of strenuous efforts made by the appellant W.A.No.1034, 971 & 973 of 2021

or devotees of the temple in persuading the Head Office for calling

for a report on the lines indicated hereunder:

"4. In view of this, you are once again requested to submit other alternative options available for temple mentioned at S.No.(4) by which Temple building can be saved like construction of elevated etc (10.5 m main carriageway & 1.5 m paved shoulder) alongwith your recommendation and recommendation for temple mentioned at S.No.(5). You are also requested to submit status of land acquisition like 3D, 3G & 3H in this stretch."

4. The argument now canvassed with considerable

vehemence is that the Regional Officer has no regard for the

opinion desired by the Head Office and there is discrimination in

selecting the removal of places of worship by the Regional Officer.

5. We place on record the above statement, since an

argument is made with considerable force by Advocate Biju

Antony Aloor. The counsel desires to bring to the notice of the

Head Office about the manner in which the view sought for by the

Head Office vide letter dated 17.08.2022 is considered by the

Regional Officer. This is a fair submission.

W.A.No.1034, 971 & 973 of 2021

We leave it open to the appellant to bring to the notice of the