Kerala High Court
G. Madhusoodanan vs State Of Kerala on 3 January, 2024
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6246 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 G. MADHUSOODANAN
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O GANGADHARAN, SHANTHIGIRI,
6TH STONE, KARAKULAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695564
2 SULEKHA BEEVI, AGED 72 YEARS
WIFE OF MOHAMMED ABDUL KHADAR,
RIYA MANZIL, NEAR U.P. SCHOOL, AZHIKODE,
CHEKKAKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695654
3 G.R.THANKAM, AGED 59 YEARS
WIFE OF SREEKANTAN, SREEKANTA BHAVA,
PURAVOORKONAM, KARAKULAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695564
4 AHAMMED RAMSI K
S/O. KAMALUDHEEN HAJI, BARAKATH MANZIL,
PERINGAMALA P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAMB - 695563
5 SAJAD M., AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF MAITHEN KANNU, SSN HOUSE,
VALAVATTY, AZHIKODE, CHEKKAKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695564
6 HUSSAIN S., AGED 65 YEARS
SON OF SHAHUL HAMEED LABBA,
NAZEEMA MANZIL, IRINGAYAM P.O.,
NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695561
7 ABDUL SALAM M., AGED 67 YEARS
SON OF MOHAMMED KUNJU, FATHIMAMANZIL,
AZHIKODE, CHEKKAKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695564
BY ADVS.
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
T.RAMPRASAD UNNI
S.M.PRASANTH
W.P(C) 6246/2023 -2-
T.H.ARAVIND
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS),
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS),
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
5 THE KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD
T.C. 4/1654, MAYOORAM, NO. 7,
BELHAVEN ROAD P.O., BELHAVEN GARDENS,
KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT OFFICER - 695001
6 THE PROJECT OFFICER
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT,
KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, BSNL BUILDING, PMG,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695033
7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT,
KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, EAST PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695004
8 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS), NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695541
BY ADVS.
W.P(C) 6246/2023 -3-
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL()
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) 6246/2023 -4-
JUDGMENT
The Government of Kerala issued Ext.P1 order
dated 15.10.2020 granting sanction for the
acquisition of 7.52 hectares of land in Karakulam,
Aruvikkara, Nedumangad, and Karipoor Villages for
the four-laning of the Vazhayila - Nedumangad -
Pazhakutty road, invoking the provisions under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFCTLARR
Act', for short). The petitioners own properties
adjacent to the said road and their properties are
included in Ext.P1 order. According to them, the
alignment of the road is fixed without a proper social
impact assessment, and is unscientific. It is stated
that the present proposal is to acquire properties
only from one side of the road without considering
the availability of large extent of puramboke lands
on the other side. The petitioners contend that using
the puramboke land for widening the road could
have avoided acquisition of private lands belonging
to them and the Government could have saved public
money. The petitioners refer to Ext.P6 Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) study report and state that the
only advantage noted regarding the proposed
alignment is the avoidance of approximately 23
curves. However, the report states that
approximately 92 families will have to be evicted,
impacting the livelihoods of people conducting
business on one side of the road. It is also pointed
out that about 420 Ares of vacant government
property will remain unused. The petitioners also
refer to Ext.P8 report of the Expert Group which
concurs with the findings in the SIA study report.
2. The petitioners, therefore, filed W.P.(C) No.
19331 of 2021 seeking direction to the competent
authority under the RFCTLARR Act and the
Government to have a proper consideration of the
recommendations in the SIA study report and to take
a decision in accordance with the said
recommendations. During the pendency of the
above writ petition, Government issued Ext. P7 order
dated 20.06.2022 granting sanction under Section
8(2) of the RFCTLARR Act to proceed with the
acquisition. According to the petitioners, Ext.P7
order is a clear indication that the Government have
decided to proceed with the acquisition without
taking into account the SIA study report and the
provisions of Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act. The
petitioners state that, the Government, vide Ext.P9
letter dated 26.05.2022, directed the District
Collector to submit another recommendation, and
the District Collector, by Ext.P10, unilaterally
recommended the acquisition of 7.561 hectares of
land, deviating from the recommendations of the
Expert Group in Ext.P8. It is on the basis of the said
report that the Government have issued Ext.P7 order
referred above.
3. On 12.08.2022, the Government published
Ext.P12 preliminary notification under Section 11(1)
of the RFCTLARR Act expressing the intention to
acquire lands for the first reach of the project as
originally envisaged. The petitioners state that the
preliminary notification has been published without
taking into consideration the recommendations in
the SIA study report or the report of the Expert
Group.
4. W.P.(C) No.19331 of 2021 was disposed of by
this Court by Ext.P16 judgment permitting the
petitioners to raise their objections to Ext.P12
notification before the competent authority. This
Court directed the competent authority to consider
the objections and make a reasoned decision in strict
compliance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 15 of the RFCTLARR Act. This Court
observed that, when considering the objections
raised by interested parties under Section 15, the
competent authority is bound to consider the
objection regarding the area and suitability of the
land proposed to be acquired, the justification
offered for the public purpose, and the findings in
the SIA study report. This Court also observed that,
since Section 15(2) of the RFCTLARR Act mandates
that the decision under Section 15(3) shall be made
only after considering 'all the objections,' the
objection under Section 15 will take in the aspects
covered by Section 8 as well.
5. In the meantime, the Government issued
Ext.P18 notification dated 04.02.2023 publishing the
draft resettlement package under Section 16 (2) of
the RFCTLARR Act. Accordingly, the petitioners filed
this writ petition on 20.02.2023, seeking, inter alia, a
direction to the respondents to forbear from
proceeding with the acquisition without considering
their objections, as directed by this Court in Ext.P16
judgment.
6. During the pendency of this writ petition, the
Government issued Ext.P19 communication dated
31.03.2023 rejecting the objections of the petitioners
and authorising the District Collector to proceed
with the acquisition proceedings. The Government
then issued Ext.P20 declaration dated 07.07.2023
under Section 19(1) of the RFCTLARR Act. The
petitioners have amended the writ petition to
challenge Exts.P19 and P20. The petitioners contend
that the Government rejected their objections
without proper application of mind, solely based on
the report of the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition
(KIIFB), and without adhering to the directions of
this Court in Ext.P16 judgment. It is also stated that
the final notification, Ext.P20, was issued without
complying with the mandatory requirements under
the RFCTLARR Act. It is contended that the
impugned orders and notifications have infringed the
fundamental and Constitutional rights of the
petitioners.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the 1st respondent wherein it is averred that the
acquisition proceedings have been initiated strictly
in compliance with all statutory procedures. It is
stated that the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition
(KIIFB), the competent authority, is not made a party
and hence the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of
necessary party. It states that the acquisition
proceedings have been initiated to establish hassle-
free and easy road connectivity from
Thiruvananthapuram to Madurai. It is stated that the
existing road from Thenmala to Thiruvananthapuram
through Vazhayila - Nedumangad - Pazhakutty is a
two-lane road having only 12 meter width with sharp
turns and curves at many places. The State
Government, the appropriate Government, taking
into consideration several factors such as reducing
travel time, fuel consumption, and accidents,
decided to upgrade the said road into four-lane by
increasing the width to 21 meters for convenient
travel. Although, earlier, a notification under Section
4(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was issued to conduct a
SIA study for the above acquisition, it was
subsequently cancelled due to a proposal by the
National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for the
four-laning of Vazhayila - Pazhakutty - Kacherinada
road by increasing the width to 45 meters. However,
since the NHAI did not take up the said project, a
fresh Section 4(1) notification dated 30.10.2020 was
issued, entrusting for SIA study. It is also stated that
the Section 4(1) notification was gazetted and
published in all places as well as on the website of
the Government. It is further averred that the SIA
agency submitted its report, which was forwarded to
the Expert Group for evaluation. The SIA report was
then sent to the Chief Engineer (Design), PWD for
detailed assessment. According to Ext. R1(a) report
of the Chief Engineer, the alignment is designed for
the minimum speed for the State Highway, and
reducing the designed speed or adopting a non-
designed alignment may lead to accidents at various
locations, causing loss of human life. It is stated that
the Government have scrupulously considered the
SIA report, the recommendations of the Expert
Group, and the technical explanation of the Chief
Engineer (Design), PWD and the report of the
District Collector before issuing Ext.P7 decision
under Section 8 (2) of the RFCTLARR Act. It is
stated that the Government found that there is a
legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the
proposed project and that the potential benefits and
the public purpose outweigh the adverse social
impacts, as observed by the SIA agency. It is further
averred that the Government have given more
weightage to larger public interest and safety
aspects in accepting the alignment design of
technical experts. With regard to the allegations of
violation of statutory procedures, it is stated that the
report of the Expert Group as well as Ext.P7 order
granting sanction under Section 8(2) of the
RFCTLARR Act was published in all relevant places,
offices and areas and additionally, they were
uploaded on the website of the appropriate
Government as required under Sections 7(6) and
8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act. It is also stated that,
following Exts.P12 and P12(a) notifications under
Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, the petitioners
submitted objections and as per the directions in
Ext.P16 judgment, the Special Tahsildar, Land
Acquisition (KIIFB), heard the objectors and rejected
the objections as per Ext.R1(b) proceedings. The
Government then published Ext.P19 declaration
directing the District Collector to proceed with the
acquisition in the first reach. It is averred that the
design for the four-lane road has been fixed in
accordance with Indian Road Congress (IRC)
standards in view of larger public interest.
Furthermore, it is stated that in the first reach from
Vazhayila to Keltron junction, there are 400 holdings
to be acquired, and the petitioners are the sole
objectors regarding the alignment. Accordingly, the
1st respondent prays for dismissal of the writ
petition.
8. Heard Sri. S. M. Prasanth, the learned
counsel for the petitioners and Smt. N. Sudhadevi,
the learned Special Government Pleader (LA).
9. Sri. Prasanth contends that the acquisition
proceedings are vitiated by violation of statutory
provisions. It is argued that the conduct of the Social
Impact Assessment is mandatory under the
provisions of the RFCTLARR Act. The SIA agency
has pointed out that the acquisition of property, as
shown in Ext.P1, would have serious social and
economic impacts. The SIA agency, after weighing
the pros and cons of the proposed alignment,
suggested utilising the vacant lands on both sides of
the existing road. It mentions that about 92 families
will have to be evicted and the same will affect the
livelihood of the people who are doing business
locally. The report also notes the financial burden to
the Exchequer. The Expert Group agreed with the
findings of the SIA study. However, the Government,
by Ext.P9, directed the District Collector to submit
another recommendation after obtaining the
remarks of the competent authority and the
observation of the Chief Engineer (Design), PWD.
Sri.Prasanth would contend that such procedure
cannot be countenanced as the report of the SIA
agency and the Expert Group cannot be overlooked.
It is further contended that the recommendations of
the Expert Group shall be made available in local
language and shall be published in affected areas as
stipulated under Section 7(6) of the RFCTLARR Act
and that none of the directions in Ext.P16 judgment
has been complied with. Sri.Prasanth contends that
Exts.P19 and P20 are issued mechanically without
any application of mind and without meeting the
statutory requirements.
10. Per contra, Smt.Sudha would contend that
all the statutory formalities have been complied with
while initiating the acquisition proceedings. The
notifications have been published as stipulated by
the Statute. The report of the Expert Group was
published in Malayalam as stipulated under Sections
7(6) and 8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act. Smt. Sudha also
handed over to me the copy of the Expert Group
report published in the newspapers. It is contended
that the Government directed the District Collector
to obtain the recommendations of the Chief Engineer
(Design), PWD as it is recommended by the Expert
Group in Ext.P8 to ascertain whether it is possible to
implement the project after making necessary
changes to the alignment by reducing social impact,
at the Government level. The Chief Engineer has
reported that compromising the IRC standard in
geometry at locations will invite road safety
concerns. On the basis of the same, the District
Collector issued Ext.P10 and the contention that
Ext.P10 has been issued unilaterally is incorrect. The
objections of the petitioners were considered by the
Special Tahsildar, LA (KIIFB) and were rejected by
Ext.R1(b) proceedings and the Government by
Ext.P19 rejected the objections and directed the
District Collector to proceed with the acquisition.
Smt. Sudha submits that the widening of the
aforesaid road has been a long pending demand and
the stretch is part of inter-state highway.
11. Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act deals with
preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study.
Section 5 deals with public hearing for Social Impact
Assessment, which states that whenever a Social
Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under
Section 4, the appropriate Government shall ensure
that a public hearing is held at the affected area,
after giving adequate publicity about the date, time
and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the
views of the affected families to be recorded and
included in the Social Impact Assessment Report,
which is to be published as per Section 6 of the
RFCTLARR Act at the designated places. The Social
Impact Report is liable to be appraised by an
independent multi disciplinary Expert Group as
provided under Section 7. Section 7(4) provides that
if the Expert Group is of the opinion that, the project
does not serve any public purpose; or the social
costs and adverse social impacts of the project
outweigh the potential benefits, it shall make a
recommendation within two months from the date of
its constitution to the effect that the project shall be
abandoned forthwith and no further steps to acquire
the land will be initiated in respect of the same and
that the grounds for such recommendation shall be
recorded in writing giving the details and reasons
for such decision. It is provided further that where
the appropriate Government, in spite of such
recommendations, proceeds with the acquisition,
then, it shall ensure that its reasons for doing so are
recorded in writing. Section 7(5) provides that, if the
Expert Group is of the opinion that the project will
serve any public purpose; and the potential benefits
outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts,
it shall make specific recommendations within two
months from the date of its constitution whether the
extent of land proposed to be acquired is the
absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the
project and whether there are no other less
displacing options available and the grounds for
such recommendation shall be recorded in writing.
Section 7(6) deals with publication of
recommendations of the Expert Group. Section 8 of
the RFCTLARR Act deals with the examination of
proposals for land acquisition and Social Impact
Assessment report by the appropriate Government.
Section 8(1)(a) provides that, the appropriate
Government shall ensure that, there is a legitimate
and bona fide public purpose for the proposed
acquisition which necessitates the acquisition of the
land identified. Clause (b) of Section 8(1) states that
the potential benefits and the public purpose
referred to in clause (a) shall outweigh the social
costs and adverse social impact as determined by
the Social Impact Assessment that has been carried
out. It is also provided therein to ensure only the
minimum area of land required for the project is
proposed to be acquired. Section 9 enables the
appropriate Government to get itself exempted from
social impact assessment where land is proposed to
be acquired invoking the urgency provisions of
Section 40. Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act
provides that whenever the land in an area is
required or likely to be required for any public
purpose, a preliminary notification to that effect
along with the details of the land to be acquired in
rural and urban areas shall be published (a) in the
Official Gazette; (b) in two daily newspapers
circulating in the locality of such area of which one
shall be in the regional language; (c) in the local
language in the Panchayat, Municipality or
Municipal Corporation as the case may be and in the
offices of the District Collector, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate and the Tehsil; (d) uploaded on the
website of the appropriate Government; and (e) in
the affected areas, in such manner as may be
prescribed. Section 15 deals with hearing of
objections and provides that any person interested in
any land which has been notified under sub-section
(1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be
required for a public purpose, may within sixty days
from the date of the publication of the preliminary
notification, object to, (a) the area and suitability of
land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification
offered for public purpose; and (c) the findings of the
Social Impact Assessment report. Section 15 (2)
provides that the Collector after hearing all such
objections and after making such further inquiry, if
any, make a report to the appropriate Government,
containing his recommendations on the objections,
together with the record of the proceedings for the
decision of the Government. Section 15(3) provides
that the decision of the appropriate Government on
the objections shall be final. Section 19 of the
RFCTLARR Act deals with the publication of
declaration and summary of Rehabilitation and
Resettlement.
12. The first contention of Sri.Prasanth is that
the recommendations of the Expert Group were not
made available and published in the local language
as stipulated by Section 7(6) of the RFCTLARR Act.
It is also contended that the decision of the
Government on the SIA report was not published as
mandated under Section 8(3).
13. Section 7(6) of the RFCTLARR Act provides
that the recommendations of the Expert Group shall
be made available in the local language to the
Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation,
as the case may be, and the offices of the District
Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the
Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas,
in such manner as may be prescribed and uploaded
on the website of the appropriate Government. Rule
16 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation,
and Resettlement (Kerala) Rules, 2015 (RFCTLARR
(Kerala) Rules, for short) deals with the publication
of the report of the Expert Group. Section 8(3) of
RFCTLARR Act provides that the decision of the
appropriate Government recommending acquisition
shall be made available in the local language to the
Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation,
as the case may be, and the offices of the District
Collector, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the
Tehsil, and shall be published in the affected areas,
in such manner as may be prescribed, and uploaded
on the website of the appropriate Government. Rule
17 of the RFCTLARR (Kerala) Rules deals with
publication of the decision of the Government under
Section 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st
respondent, it is stated that the report of the Expert
Group and Ext.P7 decision of the Government under
Section 8 were made available in Malayalam and
published in all the places, offices and areas
concerned and also uploaded on the website of the
appropriate Government as required under Sections
7(6) and 8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act respectively.
These averments have not been controverted by the
petitioners in their reply affidavit. I accept the
averments in the counter affidavit and reject the
contentions of the petitioners as regards the
violation of the stipulations under Sections 7(6) and
8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act.
14. The next contention of Sri. Prasanth is that
the objections of the petitioners were not considered
in the light of the directions of this Court in Ext.P16
judgment. In Ext.P16, this Court observed that while
considering the objections raised by interested
parties under Section 15, the competent authority is
bound to consider the objection regarding the area
and suitability of the land proposed to be acquired,
the justification offered for the public purpose, the
findings in the SIA study report and the aspects
covered by Section 8. The petitioners have not
produced the proceedings of the Special Tahsildar,
Land Acquisition (KIIFB) on hearing the objections.
The same has been produced by the 1 st respondent
as Ext.R1(b) along with their counter affidavit. In
Ext.R1(b), the competent authority has individually
addressed the objections of all the seven
petitioners/objectors. The objections were mainly
with regard to alignment and in taking land from one
side of the road. It has been observed by the
competent authority in Ext.R1(b) that, widening the
road by utilising the puramboke land on the other
side and changing the alignment may increase
accidents and other associated impacts, affecting
road safety. When designing four lanes as per the
IRC stipulations, the alignment has to be prepared
as per the geometric standards, design speed etc,
and in such cases, the land on one side, which has
many twists and turns, must often be avoided. This
spared land can be utilised to improve road
infrastructure. It is further stated that, considering
the availability of puramboke land at some places, it
is not possible to modify the IRC norms and the
alignment cannot be prepared through the
puramboke land. It is also observed that the
Vazhayila - Nedumangad - Pazhakutty road is a
pivotal inter State Highway connecting Kerala and
Tamil Nadu and its social, economic, touristic and
commercial importance is immense and it is not
possible to change the layout to mitigate the impact
since compromising on IRC Geometric design
standards will increase risks and seriously affect
road safety. It is also observed that the benefits to
the society by acquisition are enormous. The
competent authority has considered the objections
with due regard to Sections 8 and 15 (1) of the
RFCTLARR Act. The report cannot be said as
verbatim reproduction as contended by Sri.
Prasanth, as, similar objections may lead to similar
replies. It cannot be termed as mechanical. The
Government, after considering the recommendation
of the competent authority, rejected the objections of
the petitioners stating that change of alignment will
invite road safety concerns, and passed Ext.P19
order under Section 15(3). Pursuant thereto, the
Government have published Ext.P20 declaration
under Section 19.
15. In Ext.P6 Social Impact Assessment report,
it is opined that the acquisition as per the alignment
proposed by the developer can be implemented,
after assessing the feasibility of making layout
changes in response to complaints, subject to
relevant Act and Rules for acquisition. In Ext.P8
report, the Expert Group recommended that, to
minimize the adverse social impact and to implement
the project, decisions should be made at the
Government level after examining the feasibility of
incorporating necessary changes in the layout. The
SIA report was forwarded to the Chief Engineer
(Design), PWD for evaluation and the Chief Engineer
submitted Ext.R1(a) report observing, inter alia, that
the alignment is designed for the minimum speed for
the State Highway, and reducing the designed speed
or adopting a non-designed alignment may lead to
accidents at various locations, causing loss of human
life. On the basis of the said report, the District
Collector, by Ext.P10 letter, observed that the project
is crucial for the commercial and economic
development of the State, increased time savings,
fuel efficiency, and improved public transport
facilities. The sharp bends on the road have
tragically claimed numerous lives and reducing the
number of curves will mitigate accidents. It is also
stated that the Government's responsibility to the
public and the public purpose for the acquisition will
outweigh the adverse social impact. Accordingly, the
District Collector requested the Government to issue
orders to proceed with the acquisition based on the
existing design. The Government, after examining
the SIA report, Expert Group recommendations,
Ext.R1 (a) report of the Chief Engineer (Design),
PWD and the report of the District Collector, have
issued Ext.P7 order granting sanction under Section
8(2) of the RFCTLARR Act to proceed with the
acquisition. The Government have also given reasons
for the decision. There is no violation of the
requirements of Sections 7 and 8 of the RFCTLARR
Act as contended by Sri. Prasanth. There is no
recommendation by the Expert Group that the
project shall be abandoned. It only recommended to
implement the project by minimizing the adverse
social impact after examining the feasibility of
incorporating necessary changes in the layout, at the
Government level. The Government found that
compromising the IRC standard in geometry at
locations will invite road safety concern and decided
to proceed with the acquisition based on the existing
design. Section 8(2) mandates that the Government
shall examine the report of the Collector, if any, and
the report of the Expert Group on the Social Impact
Assessment study and after considering all the
reports, recommend such area for acquisition. It is
true that the section does not contemplate any
evaluation by the Chief Engineer (Design), PWD.
When the Expert Group has recommended to
examine the feasibility of incorporating necessary
changes in the layout at the Government level to
minimize the adverse social impact, there is nothing
wrong in the Government examining and considering
the recommendations of the Chief Engineer
(Design), PWD forwarded by the District Collector
while taking decision in terms of Section 8(2) of the
RFCTLARR Act.
16. Yet another contention of Sri. Prasanth is
that the recommendations of the Chief Engineer
(Design), PWD were not disclosed to the petitioners
and there is violation of the requirements under Rule
20(6) of the RFCTLARR (Kerala) Rules. Rule 20(6)
provides that if any material or relevant fact is
disclosed during the enquiry conducted by the
Collector adverse to the person who has submitted
the written objections, the said person shall be put
to notice about the result of the enquiry and a
reasonable opportunity shall be offered to him to
dispute the said material or relevant fact before
formulating the report. The said Rule applies at the
time of hearing of objections on the preliminary
notification. The recommendations of the Chief
Engineer (Design), PWD were part of Ext.P7 order
granting sanction under Section 8(2) of the
RFCTLARR Act to proceed with the acquisition
which was published in terms of Sections 7(6) and
8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act. The same was published
even before publication of preliminary notification.
Therefore, it is not open to the petitioners to contend
that the recommendations of the Chief Engineer
(Design), PWD were not disclosed to them.
17. It is contended on behalf of the Government
that the Government, on examining the proposal for
acquisition and the reports of SIA and Expert Group,
have arrived at a conclusion that there is a
legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the
proposed project and that the potential benefits and
the public purpose do outweigh the social costs and
adverse social impacts as observed by the Social
Impact Assessment agency. The recommendations of
SIA agency and the Expert Group are not binding on
the appropriate Government. They are
recommendatory in nature. On examination of
proposals for land acquisition and Social Impact
Assessment report, the appropriate Government
shall ensure that there is a legitimate and bona fide
public purpose for the proposed acquisition and that
the potential benefits and such public purpose shall
outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact
as determined by the Social Impact Assessment
agency. The goal is to ensure that the overall result
is positive for the society. The Government, after
examining the SIA report, Expert Group
recommendations, Ext.R1 (a) report of the Chief
Engineer (Design), PWD and the report of the
District Collector, have issued Ext.P7 order granting
sanction under Section 8(2) of the RFCTLARR Act to
proceed with the acquisition. The scope of
interference of this Court over the said decision is
very limited. No mala fides have been alleged
against the respondents in issuing Ext.P7 or the
impugned notifications or in fixing the alignment. It
is seen that the project was on the anvil for the last
several years. The stretch is part of Inter State
Highway. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of
India v. Dr. Kaushala Shetty and others [(2011)
12 SCC 69] has held that 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
and in such matters, the scope of judicial review is
very limited. The nature of alignment of the road has
to be best left to experts. This Court finds no reason
to interfere with the acquisition proceedings and the
orders impugned.
The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
spc/
APPENDIX
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (RT) NO. 3132/2020/RD DATED
15.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING A PART OF THE
PROPOSED ROAD IN RESPECT OF BLOCK NO. 36 OF
NEDUMANGADU VILLAGE OF NEDUMANGADU TALUK IN
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PREPARED BY ONE
MANIKANTAN NAIR K. (SURVEYOR)
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2019
SUBMITTED BY THE ACTION COUNCIL OF THE
RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY IN RESPECT OF
VAZHAYILA - NEDUMANGAD PAZHAMKUTTY ROAD
WIDENING, TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF
KERALA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. A1-2315/2017
DATED 15..06..2019 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
TO PROF. A. NABEESA UMMAL, EX. MLA, NEDUMANGAD
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17..01..2020
SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE
HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA
Exhibit P6 TRUE EXTRACT OF RELEVANT PAGES OF REPORT OF
THE SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY DATED
31..08..2021 SUBMITTED BY THE CENTRE FOR LAND
AND SOCIAL STUDIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
SUBMITTED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER G.O. (MS) NO. 166/2022/RD
DATED 20..06..2022 ISSUED BY R1
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF RECOMMENDATION OF EXPERT GROUP
SUBMITTED ON 14..04..2022 IN RESPECT OF SOCIAL
IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY ON VAZHAYILA -
NEDUMANGAD - PAZHAMKUTY ROAD DEVELOPMENT
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER NO.
REV/B3/700/2018 DATED 26..05..2022 SENT BY THE
GOVERNMENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. K5/22295/19
DATED ..05..2022 SENT BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE (B) DEPARTMENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT. 10..06..2022 SENT BY
THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE DISTRICT LEVEL EXPERT
GROUP TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (P) NO. 216/2022/RD DATED
12..08..2022 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY
DT. 12..08..2022
Exhibit NOTIFICATION NO. G.O. (P) NO. 288/2022/RD
P12(a) DATED 12..11..2022 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 28..09..2022
SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE R2
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 23..09..2022
SUBMITTED BY ONE SRI. SREEKANTAN NAIR
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 31/RTI/2021/AVK DT.
NIL SENT BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, ARUVIKKARA
POLICE STATION TO THE FIRST PETITIONER UNDER
THE RI ACT
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 16..11..2022 IN
W.P. (C) NO. 19331 OF 2021
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 28..01..2023
SUBMITTED BY SRI. KAMALUDHEEN HAJI, FATHER OF
THE 4TH PETITIONER HEREIN
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 28..01..2023
P17(a) SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER
MADHUSOODANAN
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 06..02..2023
P17(b) SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE
SKETCH
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO. K5.496222/2022
DT. 04..02..2023 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) PUBLISHING A DRAFT
OF THE RESETTLEMENT PACKAGE IN THE JANAYUGHAM
DAILY DATED 06..02..2023
Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.B3/1/2023-REV
DATED 31.03.2023 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER NO.A1-
07/19(1) DATED 3.4.23 SENT BY THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR, LAW (KIFBI) UNIT - I,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO ONE THANKAM
Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF G.O(P) NO.165/2023/RD DATED
7.7.23 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.03.2022 OF
R1(a) THE CHIEF ENGINEER(DESIGN), PWD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.02.2023
R1(b) OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA(KIIFB),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.03.2023
R1(c) ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR
