Kerala High Court
K. Prasannakumari vs Union Of India on 30 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 6338 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 K.DANIEL,SON OF OOMMEN KUNCHANDI,
AGED 65, NIRMITHY, VILAKKUPARA PO,
AYIRANELLOOR VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN - 691312
2 BINUMON.T.G, SON OF K.THAMARAKSHAN,
AGED 47, THOTTATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,
VILAKKUPARA PO, AYIRANELLOOR VILLAGE,
PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 312.
3 N. SASI, SON OF NARAYANAN,
AGED 68, VIJI BHAVAN,
VILAKKUPARA PO,AYIRANELLOOR VILLAGE,
PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312
4 ASHIN P. HEROLD,SON OF LATE HEROLD, AGED 36
ASHIN HOUSE, VILAKKUPARA PO,
AYIRANELLOOR VILLAGE,PUNALUR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312
5 BIJU KUMAR,SON OF N.SASI, AGED 35,
BIJU BHAVAN, VILAKKUPARA PO,
AYIRANELLOOR VILLAGE, PUNALUR TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691312
BY ADVS.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.),
PRAKASH P.GEORGE,SADER E.REAZ
SAJID P.S.,P.MARTIN JOSE
ABIJITH M.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS,
NEW DELHI - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 2
36481 of 2023
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THRIUVANANTHUPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR-LA NH
1ST FLOOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, P.O, PIN -
691013
4 THE PROJECT HEAD,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE, TC-86/1036-1, AMBILY ARCADE,
S.N.N.R.A-9, PETTAH, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN -
695024
5 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, TC 36/414(3),
NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, PALKULANGARA,
THIRUVANATHAPURAM-, PIN - 695024
ADDL.R6 JOSE E.K , AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. KURIAKOSE ELAVUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, EROOR,
VILAKKUPAARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691312
ADDL.R7 SUJOY KRISHNAN AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNAN, VALLAMKULAM GARDENS, NIRAPPIL,
VILAKKUPARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691312
ADDL.R8 MOHAMMED YOUSAF, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MYDEEN KANNU, SHEJIN MANZIL, NIRAPPIL,
VILAKKUPAARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691312
ADDL.R9 NOUSHAD A , AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. ABBAS K.S, NOUSHAD MANZIL, AYIRANELLOR,
VILAKKUPAARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691312
ADDL.R10 GEORGE E.K, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.KURIAKOSE, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE, EROOR,
VILAKKUPAARA P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691312
ADDL.R6 TO R10 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
30.05.2024 IN IA NO.3 OF 2023
DSG IN-CHARGE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA
ADDL.R6 TO R10 BY ADVS.S.SREEDEV
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 3
36481 of 2023
RONY JOSE
LEO LUKOSE
KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
DERICK MATHAI SAJI
OTHER PRESENT:
GP -DEEPA V
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).11425/2023 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 4
36481 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11425 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 K.SARASWATHY AMMA @ SARASWATHY
AGED 82,W/O RAVEENDRAN
SARASWATHY SADANAM (KAILASAM),
CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM - 691534
2 R.S. ARUNKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS
S/O RAVEENDRAN SARASWATHY SADANAM,
CHADAYAMANGALAM P.O., KOLLAM- 691534
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
K.SARASWATHY AMMA (PETITIONER NO.1)
BY ADVS. P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)
SABU GEORGE
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,
TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI - 110001
2 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, 1ST FLOOR,
T.C 36/414(3), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PALKULANGARA JN., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695024
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 5
36481 of 2023
4 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA),
NHAI UNIT NO.1, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM - 691572
5 THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
NHAI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.C 86/1036-1,
AMBLY ARCADE, S.N.N.R.A - 9, PETTAH P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA - 695024
DSG IN-CHARGE SRI. T.C. KRISHNA
GP DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6338/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 6
36481 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11936 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 K. PRASANNAKUMARI,AGED 83 YEARS
W/O N.SUGATHAN, VALIYATHOTTATHIL VEEDU,
M.C.ROAD, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM - 691534
2 N. SUGATHAN, AGED 83 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN, VALIYATHOTTATHIL VEEDU,
M.C.ROAD, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM - 691534
BY ADV S.SANTHOSH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIIGHWAYS,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, R.NO.430, 1,
PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA)
NH KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691013
4 THE PROJECT HEAD
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, TC-86/1036-1,
AMBILY ARCADE, S.N.N.R.A-9, PETTAH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
5 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 7
36481 of 2023
TC 36/414(3), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695001
6 CHADAYAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CHADAYAMANGALAM, M.C.ROAD,
KOLLAM - 691531
BY ADVS.
DSG IN-CHARGE SRI.T.C.KRISHNA
GP DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6338/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 8
36481 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 36481 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 SHAHINA, AGED 37 YEARS
D/O PAREESA RATHER, NOUHIYA MANZIL,
KOTTAKKARA P O, KOLLAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 691506
2 SAJEEV.A, AGED 48 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, DARU SALAM,
MANJAPPARA,AYOOR KOLLAM,PIN - 691533
BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND NATIONAL HIGHWAYS,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPALSECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695001
3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A)
NATIONAL HIGHWAY-744,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY (CALA), COLLECTORATE,
CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-, PIN - 691013
4 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND
COMPETENT AUTHORITY (CALA),
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 9
36481 of 2023
TC 86/1036-1,ABILY ARCADE,SNNRA-9,
PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695024
BY ADV MINI GOPINATH -CGC .
GP DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
30.05.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).6338/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and 10
36481 of 2023
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
.................................................................
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
and
36481 of 2023
.................................................................
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
Since the issues raised in all these writ petitions are common, they
are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. W.P(C) No.11425 of 2023 is filed challenging Exts.P10 and P11
whereby the objection submitted by the petitioners as per Section 3C of
the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, "the Act") has been rejected. It
is averred that the petitioners' property was sought to be acquired for the
construction of the National Highway in Kadampattukonam-Aryankavu-
stretch of Shenkottai-Kollam road in the district of Kollam. Ext.P5
notification in this regard was issued relating to the properties of the
petitioners. Exts.P6 and P7 are objections filed by the petitioners.
Petitioners contend that the proposed purpose of the construction is to
reduce the distance from Shenkottai to Vizhinjam Port and the alignment
should move towards the south-western direction. Petitioners contend
that as per the initial plan, the proposed road was far south of their
property and due to undue influence and intervention of the Member of
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
Parliament of Kollam, the initial alignment was shifted to further north in
order to save a mosque namely Chadayamangalam Juma Masjid. Later
on, the second proposed alignment was shifted further north in order to
save a temple namely Kapplingad Devi Temple, Kuriyodu and thus the
alignment happen to pass through the property of the petitioners which
would result in the demolition of the newly constructed residential building
of the 2nd petitioner. It is further contended that the present lie of
alignment is not at all suitable for the proposed Aryankavu-
Kadampattukonam stretch which would result in a great amount of
earthwork and construction of additional bridges, resulting in escalation of
costs. The Panchayat has also passed Ext.P9 resolution complaining
about the alignment. The objections were rejected as per Exts.P10 and
P11 orders which are under challenge in this writ petition. The learned
counsel for the petitioners would contend that Ext.P5 notification does not
meet the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act regarding the brief
description of the land concerned and only the survey number of the land
is given and this has created difficulty in the petitioners filing a proper
objection. The learned counsel would further submit that an alternate
alignment was suggested by the technical expert, a copy of which is
produced as Ext.P12 along with Ext.P13 sketch prepared by the said
expert in support of the contention that the present alignment will cause
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
severe social and environmental impact. It is also contended by the
learned counsel that the notification has lapsed as no declaration in terms
of Section 3D of the Act has been issued within a period of one year from
09.11.2022, the date of Ext.P5 notification.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 5
would submit that the present construction is part of Kollam-Shenkottai
Greenfield Highway for which the present acquisition was carried out. It is
contended that the acquisition was carried out as per the procedure laid
down in the Act and the alignment has been finalised with minimum
overall social and environmental impact and taking into account the
project length and travel time in comparison with other alternative
alignment options and the said alignment has been approved by the
competent authority of the Central and State Governments. As per the
approved proposal the alignment boundary stones were laid on the site
only once and the petitioners have mistakenly understood the stones
planted as TBM Pillars and GPS Pillars as alignment and the actual
alignment boundary stone is wrongly understood as the alignment
change. The present alignment change suggested by the petitioners is
not possible due to adherence of design standards mentioned in IRC
codes. The learned standing counsel would further submit that the report
submitted by the expert which is produced as Ext.P12 is not feasible and
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
many of the stipulations in IRC code will be violated. Among other
objections it is submitted that the now suggested route by the petitioners
is through vested forests and the cutting of trees will be more and the
route is not feasible as deep trenches will be required filling up to 8
metres and construction of pillars and it would violate the manual of
guidelines on land acquisition for National Highway which prescribes that
all efforts shall be made to avoid any road alignment through National
Parks and Wildlife sanctuaries even if it requires taking a longer
route/bypass. It is also contended that the proposed alignment passes
through the Nettethara Junction to provide better connectivity and
facilitate maximum locality and it affects only 14 buildings. It is further
contended that the present alignment does not violate the Greenfield
Highway Policy of MoRTH as contended by the petitioners.
4. In W.P.(C) No.11936 of 2023 the petitioners are aggrieved by the
acquisition proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 notification in respect of the
widening of National Highway 744 in the stretch from Aryankavu to
Kollam road. Similar contentions were raised by the petitioners in this writ
petition and that the petitioners have submitted Ext.P3 objection as
regards Ext.P2 notification which has been rejected by Ext.P4 order. It is
contended that the same has been issued in a mechanical manner. It is
also contended that the present alignment will affect a large number of
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
houses and also Kuplingad Temple and Anganwadi. Though they also
moved the 5th respondent, the said representation was also rejected as
per Ext.P7. It is aggrieved by the same the petitioners have approached
this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that
Ext.P2 notification has been issued without a proper plan of the area to
be acquired and therefore the notification is vague and disentitled the
petitioners from filing a proper objection and the petitioners rely on the
decision of the Apex Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute
Factory, (2005) 13 SCC 477 wherein the court has held that when the
impugned notification fails to meet the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the
Act which requires a brief description of the land concerned, the
notification is to be treated as bad in law.
5. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1, 4 and 5 would
contend that Barangore Jute Factory's case cited supra is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances in the present case, inasmuch
as the Apex Court in that case was considering the non-availability of plan
and held that in the absence of a plan, the impugned notification fails to
meet the legal requirement of brief description of the land which renders
the notification itself invalid. The learned standing counsel would further
submit that in Ext.P2 notification itself it is specifically stated that the land,
plan and other details of the land acquired under this notification are
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the office of
the competent authority and that the said plan was very much available in
the office of the competent authority and the petitioners had every
opportunity to inspect the same and therefore contended that Ext.P2
notification meets the legal requirement of providing a brief description of
land to be acquired as contained in Section 3A of the Act. It is further
contended that before the publication of the notification under Section 3A
of the Act the entire site was inspected and it was ensured that the
present alignment was the most feasible and appropriate alignment and
thereupon the alignment was approved as early as on 20.11.2020 and
environmental clearance was also obtained for the project. The survey
work has already been completed and the proposal for notification under
Section 3D has been uploaded in the portal and the alignment proposed
by the petitioner has been examined and found to be not suitable as the
same does not adhere to the guidelines issued by the IRC. It is also
contended that the only objection raised by the petitioners is regarding
the alignment which cannot be looked into at the time of objection under
Section 3C of the Act and this Court is not competent to adjudicate such a
dispute in a writ petition which should be left to the decision of the experts
in this field.
6. In W.P.(C) No.36481 of 2023 the petitioners also challenge the
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
fixation of the alignment of National Highway 744 Greenfield - Aryankavu
to Kadampattukonam. The petitioners are the parents of students
studying in V.H.S.S., Manjappara, Ayur, Kollam. It is contended that due
to acquisition, land belonging to the Manjappara Educational and
Charitable Trust is being acquired as evident from Ext.P1 notification and
as per the present alignment the road passes through the extreme middle
of the above school property thereby dividing the same into two and
destroying the very existence of the school. Thereupon old students and
persons of the locality submitted Exts.P3 and P4 representations. The
Chairman of the Trust under which the school is functioning also
submitted a representation before the 2nd respondent which was
considered and rejected as per Ext.P5 order and that a writ petition filed
as W.P.(C) No.21236 of 2023 by the Parent-Teacher Association against
the proposed alignment was also dismissed on the ground of locus
standi. Petitioners also rely on the judgment in Barangore Jute Factory's
case cited supra and contend that since the notification does not contain
the details of brief description of the land to be acquired the notification is
illegal and arbitrary.
7. A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 4 wherein they
reiterated the earlier stand including that the alignment was approved by
the competent authority and the detailed proposal of notification under
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
Section 3D of the Act was prepared and uploaded in the portal created for
the said purpose. It is also contended that the contention of the
petitioners that there is a change in alignment is also without any basis
and there was no change in alignment in the stretch under consideration
in this writ petition and the stones planted as TBM Pillars and GPS Pillars
were mistakenly understood as alignment, while the actual alignment
boundary stone is wrongly understood as an alignment change.
8. In W.P.(C) No.6338 of 2023 the petitioners contend that they are
the residents of Ayiranelloor Village, Vilakkupara in Punalur Taluk, Kollam
District who are deeply aggrieved by Ext.P1 notification for acquisition of
land for formation of National Highway of Aryankavu-Kadampattukonam
stretch of Shenkottai-Kollam road in the district of Kollam. It is submitted
that the petitioners and other inhabitants are not at all against the
proposed new Highway and the possible development that may occur to
our State on account of the formation of the new Highway. It is contended
that the majority of petitioners own a large extent of landed properties in
Ayiranelloor Village in Punalur Taluk. The case of the petitioners is that in
Ext.P1 notification the actual extent of the property proposed to be
acquired is not precisely stated and that the plan of the property proposed
to be acquired showing the actual extent of land proposed to be acquired
forming part of the large extent of land in the ownership, possession and
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
enjoyment of the petitioners is not shown and that the petitioners are
totally unaware of the actual extent of land proposed to be acquired for
the formation of the Greenfield Highway. It is in the said circumstance that
the petitioners could not submit a proper objection to the notification. It is
the contention of the petitioners that the present notification is in violation
of the provisions of Section 3A(2) of the Act which mandates that every
notification under sub-section (1) shall give a brief description of the land
and in support of the said contention relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Barangore Jute Factory's case cited supra. The petitioners
along with other persons in the locality who are affected by the formation
of the new Highway submitted their objection dated 19.12.2022 against
Ext.P1 notification before the 3rd respondent. In the said objection they
have stated that if construction of the Highway as per the present
alignment will result in large extent of buildings being demolished and that
if it is constructed in the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioners,
which is through the eucalyptus plantations an oil palm plantations owned
by the Forest Department, no building need be demolished. Ext.P2 is the
copy of the objection submitted by the petitioners which was along with
Exts.P3 and P4 sketches and Ext.P4 shows the alternate route suggested
by the petitioners. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the
petitioners that the 2nd petitioner is in absolute ownership and in
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
possession of 50.28 Ares of property as evident from Ext.P5 tax receipt
and since his property was not notified for acquisition, he did not submit
any objection and when the National Highways Authority attempted to put
survey stones in the property owned by the 2 nd petitioner, he submitted
Ext.P6 objection. The 2nd petitioner would contend that if the Highway is
constructed through the proposed alignment the residential building
having 10000 sq. ft. plinth area will have to be demolished. It is submitted
that the 2nd respondent has issued a notice of the proposed hearing which
was scheduled on 18.01.2023 and the petitioners and others were
represented through their counsel before the 2nd respondent and the
hearing was adjourned to 01.02.2023 (wrongly typed as 01.02.2022 in the
writ petition) and on that day also the petitioners were represented
through their counsel. During the course of the argument, the counsel for
the petitioners pointed out the alternative way marked in Ext.P4 plan and
requested the 3rd respondent to constitute a committee consisting of
technical experts to study the feasibility of the alternative way suggested
by the petitioners and submit a report regarding the same. Thereafter the
3rd respondent adjourned the case stating that an inspection with the help
of the experts will be done and upon receiving the report of the experts,
the hearing of objection will be scheduled. Petitioners would contend that
no expert committee was constituted. Thereupon additional objection was
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
submitted by the petitioners on 13.02.2023 as evident from Ext.P7 along
with Ext.P8 plan. It is the contention of the petitioners that the 3 rd
respondent had not fixed the new date for hearing of the objections as
provided under Section 3C of the Act and without that the authorities are
proceeding with the survey and demarcation of the land by putting survey
stones based on the initial plan prepared by them. So the proceedings
now initiated without hearing their objection as provided under Section 3C
of the Act is absolutely arbitrary and unjust. It is further submitted that
without posting the case for further hearing the objection filed by the
petitioners has been rejected as per Exts.P9 and P12 orders. It is the
contention of the petitioners that Exts.P9 and P12 orders have been
issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to them and
therefore the same is in violation of Section 3C of the Act. They have also
a contention that the notification has elapsed as more than one year is
over after the date of Ext.P1 notification since the Central Government
has not passed any declaration as provided under Section 3D(1) of the
Act. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been
filed. The specific contention raised by the petitioners is that they have
been issued with a hearing notice dated 23.01.2023 fixing the hearing
date as 30.01.2023 and thereafter rescheduling the hearing date to
01.02.2023. The specific contention of the petitioners is that the
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
petitioners and their advocates appeared before the 3 rd respondent on
01.02.2023 and on that day since the officials of the National Highways
Authority were absent and since the report of inspection held on
30.01.2023 was not available, a full-fledged hearing was not conducted
and that the 3rd respondent intimated the petitioners and their advocates
that fresh notice will be issued and without doing so Ext.P9 order was
passed on 25.02.2023 rejecting the objection filed by the 2 nd petitioner. It
is also contended that Ext.P12 order is an antedated order which has
been forged by the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that it is stated in Ext.P12 that the petitioners were heard on
11.01.2023 and their depositions were recorded and the said statement is
totally incorrect as the 1 st petitioner was served with a hearing notice only
on 12.01.2023.
9. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the
contentions raised by the petitioners are without any basis inasmuch as
on 01.02.2023 petitioners and their counsel appeared and they were
heard and they have submitted a detailed note of argument dated
01.02.2023 and it is only after considering all the contentions in detail that
the request was rejected as per Exts.P9 and P12 and the contention
raised by the petitioners that the matter was adjourned on that date is
without any basis.
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
10. An advocate commission was appointed by this Court as per order
dated 17.03.2023. The Advocate Commissioner has inspected the site
and submitted a report. The Commissioner verified the proposed
alignment as well as the suggested alternative route and reported as
follows:
"11. From interaction with the officials present during inspection it is
understood that to conduct an in-depth study of this new alignment
proposed in the work memo, the area will have to be studied
considering numerous factors such as elevation, number of houses,
trees, etc., presence of religious establishments, schools, etc.,
whether the area is classified as protected and so on for which
permission/directions will have to be issued and that to conduct
such a study a time period of 1.5 to 2 years would be required. The
site inspection was concluded around 3.30 pm. The experts and
officials present were requested to prepare a report on the matters
laid down in I.A.No.1/2023 which are to be ascertained by them and
reported before this Hon'ble Court through the Advocate
Commissioner. Accordingly, an expert opinion was received from
the Project Director, NHAI PIU Thiruvananthapuram on 19.05.2023.
True copy of the expert opinion is produced herewith and marked
as Annexure C8."
11. A statement and an additional statement have been filed on behalf
of respondents 1, 4 and 5 wherein it was stated that the alignment
proposed by the petitioners cannot be considered at all since it does not
adhere to the guidelines issued by the IRC with the object of ensuring the
safety of the road users including that by the proposed alignment the
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
length of the stretch will increase, provision of special slope protection in
the high hill cutting will be required and provision of regular cross
drainage structures and viaducts for high filling sections also needs to be
incorporated and reduction of design speed resulting in higher travel time
in respect of the approved alignment will also be required and the same
will also increase the project cost. It is further contended that the
alignment proposed by the petitioners will cross the Kallada River three
times whereas the approved alignment crosses the same only one time
and that the proposed alignment includes greater extent of reserved
forest in the vicinity of the Schedurney Wildlife Sanctuary and the forest
length affected under the proposed alignment increases to 7.50 km with
forest area of 22.50 hectares whereas in the approved alignment the
length affected is only 3.065 km with forest area of 11.47 hectares. It is
also contended that the length of alignment coupled with the additional
requirements will result in the increase of civil cost of the project by
around Rs.45 crores. It is further contended that if there is any change of
alignment the same will attract fresh objections from the affected persons
that will result in inordinate delay in execution of the project that will in
turn lead to further increase in the cost of the project.
12. I have heard the rival contentions of both sides.
13. The essential contention raised in these writ petitions is that the
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
objection filed under Section 3C of the Act has not been properly
considered by the Authority while issuing the impugned orders. Yet
another contention raised is that the notification does not meet the
requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act regarding the brief description of
the land concerned and only the survey number of the land is given and
further that no plan is seen attached to the notification which created
difficulty to the petitioners to file a proper objection. Further contention
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notification has
lapsed as no declaration in terms of Section 3D of the Act has been
issued within a period of one year from 09.11.2022, the date of Ext.P5
notification in W.P (C) No.11425 of 2023. A perusal of the objection
preferred by the petitioners in this writ petition it is seen that it is
essentially regarding the alignment now proposed. Petitioners submit that
there was an earlier alignment fixed for which the petitioners did not have
any objection, but the same has been shifted based on the influence of
the political leaders to favour certain persons. A statement has been filed
by the National Highway Authority holding that there is no change in the
alignment as contended by the petitioners and the stones planted as TBM
Pillars and GPS Pillars were mistakenly understood as alignment while
the actual alignment boundary stone is wrongly understood as an
alignment change. In view of the categoric stand of the National Highway
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
Authority that there is no change in the alignment as contended by the
petitioners, the said contention raised by the petitioners cannot be
accepted. Yet another contention raised by the petitioners based on
Barangore Jute Factory's case cited supra is that the notification failed
to meet the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act inasmuch as a brief
description of the land concerned is not available and further that the plan
in respect of the property acquired is not appended to the notification. The
learned Deputy Solicitor General would contend that Barangore Jute
Factory's case cited supra is not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the present case whereas in the case which was
considered by the Apex Court the court was considering the non-
availability of plan and held that in the absence of a plan the impugned
notification fails to meet the requirement of brief description of the land
which renders the notification itself invalid. The learned DSG on the
strength of Ext.P5 notification produced in W.P.(C) No.11425 of 2023
would contend that brief description of the property has been stated in the
notification itself and further that the land plan in respect of the property
sought to be acquired is prepared and that the land plan and other
features of the land to be acquired under the said notification are
available and can be inspected by the interested persons at the office of
the competent authority. Therefore, in view of the specific brief description
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
of land to be acquired in the notification and since the land plan has been
prepared, which was made available for inspection by interested persons
at the office of the competent authority, I am of the view that the facts of
the case considered by the Apex Court in Barangore Jute Factory's
case cited supra are not similar to the case in hand and therefore the said
contention raised by the petitioners based on the abovesaid decision is
only to be repelled.
14. A perusal of the objections filed in these cases would reveal that
they are essentially regarding the alignment and the petitioners have
sought for a change in the alignment which has been rejected by the
competent authority as per the impugned orders holding that the change
in the alignment is not feasible since the alignment has been prepared
based on the stipulations in the IRC. The learned DSG would further
submit that before publication of the notification under Section 3A of the
Act the entire site was inspected and it was ensured that the present
alignment was feasible and most appropriate alignment and thereupon
the alignment was approved as early as on 20.11.2020 and
environmental clearance was also obtained for the project. The survey
work has already been completed and the proposal for notification under
Section 3D has been uploaded in the portal. The alignment proposed by
the petitioner has been examined and found it not suitable as the same
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
does not adhere to the guidelines issued by the IRC. It is further
contended that since the only objection raised by the petitioners is
regarding the alignment the same cannot be looked into at the time of
objection under Section 3C of the Act and that this Court is not competent
to adjudicate such a dispute in a writ petition which should be left to the
decision of the experts in that field. It is the further contention that the
alignment proposed by the petitioners cannot be considered since it does
not adhere to the guidelines issued by the IRC for ensuring safety of the
road users and further that by the proposed alignment the length of the
stretch will increase, and it would result in providing the provisions for
special slope protection in high hill cutting and also regular cross drainage
structures should also be provided including viaducts and the same will
also increase the project cost. It is also contended that the alignment
proposed by the petitioners will cross the Kallada River three times
whereas the approved alignment crosses the same only once and that
the proposed alignment includes greater extent of reserved forest in the
vicinity of the Schedurney Wildlife Sanctuary and forest length affected
under the proposed alignment increases to 7.50 kms with forest area of
22.50 hectares whereas in the approved alignment the length affected is
only 3.065 km with forest area of 11.47 hectares. It is also contended that
any change of alignment will attract fresh objections from the affected
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
persons that will result in an inordinate delay in the execution of the
project that will in turn lead to a further increase in the cost of the project.
15. The Apex Court in Union of India v. D.Kushala Shetty and
others, (2011 (12) SCC 69 has considered the question as to what extent
the objection regarding the alignment could be considered by the
authorities and by the courts and 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."
This Court in Travancore Devaswom Board v. National Highway
Authority of India and Others, MANU/KE/1983/2022 has held that in
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
cases where the alignment, etc. are under challenge, the scope of judicial
review is very much limited. This Court in Salini v. Union of India, 2021
(6) KLT 446 has considered the powers of CALA in considering the
objection preferred under Section 3C of the Act and held in paragraphs
19 and 26 as follows:
"19. Axiomatically, therefore, if the CALA is to find any objections
preferred before them - under Section 3-C of the NH Act - to be genuine
and to thus conclude that a land included in the original alignment is not
required for the purposes mentioned in Section 3-A of it, then their report
will certainly record so, and will have to be taken into account by the
Government of India, while the Section 3-D notification is issued, which
may entail or otherwise the alteration of the original proposal or the
alignment. Should any change to the proposal or alignment happen for
such reason, it is not because the CALA recommended so, but solely as
an after - action to the exclusion of certain lands found by the said
Authority to be unfit or unnecessary within the criteria under Section 3-A
of the NH Act. This may sometimes happen as a consequence and there
is nothing unusual about this, because this is how the statutory mandate
provides and operates.
xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx"
26. To paraphrase, if an objection is raised before the CALA as regards
the alignment per se, it will not be possible for him to consider it, because
his competence is confined to decide whether the land sought to be
acquired is required for the building, maintenance, management or
operation of a National Highway or part thereof. It is only if an objector is
able to convince them that the land belonging to him/her, or over which
he/she makes a claim, is not required for any such purpose, can the
CALA accept it and then report accordingly to the Government of India,
which may or may not, then, consequentially cause a change in the
alignment."
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
The appeal preferred against the said judgment in Salini's case cited
supra was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Salini V.S. and
others v. Union of India and others, MANU/KE/3149/2021 and rejected
the appeal holding as follows:
"12. A reading of the provisions extracted above, would make it clear that
so far as the objection with respect to alignment is concerned, the
competent authority is not vested with any powers and, therefore, if any
objection is raised by the appellants in the objections filed in regard to the
notification issued under Section 3A for the acquisition of the land the
competent authority cannot render any decision with respect to the same.
Therefore, when the competent authority is not vested with any powers
under law to do a particular thing, it is at liberty to ignore any such
objection raised, and refuse adjudication accordingly. Which thus means
clear inhibitions are prescribed under Section 3C of Act 1956 in regard to
the power to be exercised by the competent authority in the matter of
acquisition of the land."
The Division Bench of this Court has categorically held that so far as the
objection with respect to alignment is concerned, the competent authority
is not vested with any powers and, therefore, the competent authority
cannot render any decision with respect to the same and can even ignore
such objection. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.792 of 2021
considered a similar issue and held in paragraph 31 as follows:
"31. In our considered opinion the acquisition of land for the purpose of
National Highway is the absolute domain of the Central Government
and the State Government has no manner of power or authority to
interfere with the acquisition of the land. Even though strenuous
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
arguments were made on the basis of Ext. P10 communication of the
State Government by the learned Senior Counsel, on a query raised by
this Court as to whether the State Government has any power to
interfere with the acquisition made by the NHAI and the Central
Government, learned Senior Counsel could not point out any provisions
under the Act 1956. To top up the legal aspects discussed above, we
are of the sure and considered opinion that the alignment of a highway
cannot be altered at the whims and fancies of the individuals, and if the
courts start interfering in such matters unnecessarily, no development
would be possible, and it would materially affect the growth of the
nation, apart from interfering with avowed objects and policies of the
Government."
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Neeti Development and Leasing
Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union of India and others,
MANU/MP/0902/2015 has held that even in a case where the petitioners
have raised an argument that they were not heard before considering
their objections, the Court held that if the objection raised by the
petitioners is regarding the alignment then no prejudice is suffered by the
petitioners in not providing an opportunity of hearing, since no prejudice
has been suffered by the petitioners as their objections were outside the
purview of Section 3C of the Act, since on the admitted facts the enquiry
into the objection at the instance of the petitioners would have been an
empty formality. The Court in paragraph 7 of the said judgment held as
follows:
"7. Even assuming for the sake of argument that even if the
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
petitioners' representative was not present on 17-1-2012 before the
competent authority, then also no prejudice has been suffered by the
petitioners as their objections were outside the purview of section 3-C of
the 1956 Act as in their representations the petitioners had only made
the prayer for diversion of Satna-Rewa by-pass and the competent
authority by assigning valid and cogent reasons rejected the same. In
other words the petitioners had sought relief of re-alignment of Satna-
Rewa bypass road which beyond the purview of section 3-C of the 1956
Act. Thus, on admitted facts the enquiry into the objections at the
instance of the petitioners would have been empty formality [See:
Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J and Bank Ltd. and others,
MANU/SC/0351/2005 : (2005) 5 SCC 337]"
This Court in Madhusoodanan v. State of Kerala, 2024 (1) KLT 394 has
held that the nature of alignment of the road has to be best left to experts
to decide and that the courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the
viability and feasibility of a 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. In view of the categoric
declaration of law as stated above, since the objection raised by the
petitioners is regarding the alignment now proposed, I am of the view that
the orders impugned in WPC No. 11425, 11936 and 36481 of 2023 are
not liable to be interfered with.
16. In W.P(C) No.6338 of 2023 a factual contention has been raised
that by Ext.P9 order the objection filed by the petitioners has been
rejected by a one line order and it was in violation of the provisions of
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
Section 3C(2) of the Act wherein an opportunity of hearing was to be
provided to the objectors. Petitioners also contend that Ext.P12 is the
order passed on the objection filed by the petitioners whereas Ext.P9 is
on the objection filed by the 2 nd petitioner. The specific contention raised
by the petitioners is that Ext.P11 hearing notice was issued whereby
fixing the hearing date as 30.01.2023 which was thereafter rescheduled
to 01.02.2023. Thereafter petitioners and their counsel appeared on
01.02.2023 and on that day no full-fledged hearing was conducted and
the petitioners and their counsel were informed that after getting a report
from the National Highway Authority notice will be issued for hearing and
they need appear only thereafter. The specific contention of the
petitioners is that a new officer took charge and without giving even a
posting of the case for hearing and without hearing the petitioners Ext.P9
order was passed on 25.02.2023 totally rejecting the objection filed by the
2nd petitioner.
17. The learned Government Pleader has filed a memo producing two
documents and contended that the stand of the petitioners that no
hearing was conducted on 01.02.2023 and the matter was adjourned is
without any basis inasmuch as the petitioners have submitted their
argument notes on 01.02.2023 and only after considering the same that
the impugned order has been issued. Exts.P9 and P12 orders are under
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
challenge. Ext.P2 is stated to be the objection submitted by the
petitioners along with other affected parties. Going by the documents
produced by the learned Government Pleader along with a memo, an
argument note has also been filed by the petitioners. A perusal of Ext.P9
would reveal that the said order under Section 3C has been passed on an
application submitted by Binumon T.G., the 2nd petitioner herein.
Likewise, Ext.P12 order is issued on the objection submitted by Daniel,
the 1st petitioner herein. Since there was no clarity regarding the
objection submitted by the other petitioners as per Ext.P2, further
instruction was sought for through the learned Government Pleader and it
was reported upon instruction that in the case of Ext.P2 petition submitted
by 34 petitioners, no individual notices were issued, nor were separate
orders passed. But a perusal of Exts.P9 and P12 orders would reveal that
the orders are only in respect of the 1 st and 2nd petitioners alone and no
orders are produced in respect of the objection filed by the other
petitioners i.e., petitioners 3 to 5. The Apex Court in Kolkata Municipal
Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah, 2024 KHC 6300, has held that a
decision on the objection regarding the acquisition after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the objector is one among the seven rights
which are integral to the authority of law enabling compulsory acquisition
of private property and any violation of the same will amount to violation
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
of right to property under Article 300A. In view of the above facts and
circumstances, I am of the opinion that as regards consideration of Ext.P2
objection especially regarding petitioners 3 to 5, there has been violation
of the provisions of Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Though, I am not inclined to interfere with Exts.P9 and P12, the non-
consideration of the objection submitted by petitioners 3 to 5 is absolutely
incorrect.
18. Further contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the notification has lapsed since no declaration under Section 3D
was made within a period of one year from the date of issuance of Ext.P1
notification also cannot be accepted in view of the proviso to Section
3D(3) of the Act that in computing the said period of one year, the period
or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in
pursuance of the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A
is stayed by an order of a Court, shall be excluded. It is to be seen that
further proceedings were stayed in W.P.(C) No.11936 of 2023 and it is
continuing till date. It is also submitted by both sides that the National
Highway Authority has also undertaken that no further proceedings in the
matter will be initiated till the disposal of this writ petition. Therefore going
by the proviso to Section 3D(3) of the Act it cannot be said that the
notification ceased to have any effect after a period of one year as
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
mandated in Section 3D(3) as held in Om Parkash v. Union of India,
2010 (1) KLT Suppl. 200 (SC) and Venugopalan v. Union of India,
2021 (5) KLT 421.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are
disposed of as follows:
1. W.P.(C) Nos.11425, 11936 and 36481 of 2023 are accordingly
dismissed.
2. Exts.P9 and P12 orders impugned in W.P.(C) No.6338 of 2023 are
not interfered with.
3. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass
orders on Ext.P2 objection so far as petitioners 3 to 5 are
concerned, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of
being heard to petitioners 3 to 5 and the 5th respondent and finalise
the proceedings within an outer limit of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of the judgment.
4. Till a decision is taken as directed above, all further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P1 notification in W.P.(C) No.6338 of 2023 shall be
kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6338/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GAZETTE DATED 09-11-2022 ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 3A OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT
Exhibit.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 19-12-2022
Exhibit.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND
NATURE OF THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY
Exhibit.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND
NATURE OF THE ALTERNATIVE WAY SUGGESTED BY
THE PETITIONERS AND MARKED IN YELLOW COLOR
Exhibit.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT
DATED 28-05-2022 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER FOR THE PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR
THE PERIOD 2019 - 2020 TO 2022 - 2023
Exhibit.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 24-01-2023
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT, WHICH CONTAINS ENDORSEMENT
Exhibit.P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 13-02-2023
Exhibit.P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONERS ON 13-02-2023 ALONG WITH THE
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS SHOWING THE 2ND
ALTERNATIVE WAY
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-02-2023
PASSED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA)
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING
DATED 06-01-2023 SHOWING THE HEARING DATE
AS 11-01-2023, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY
RESCHEDULED TO 18-01-2023
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED
23-01-2023 FIXING THE HEARING DATE AS 30-
01-2023 AND THEREAFTER RESCHEDULING THE
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
HEARING DATE TO 01-02-2023
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25-02-2023
PRODUCED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER ALONG
WITH MEMO DATED 02-02-2024
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the representation received
from the residents
ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure C1 Commission notice dated 28.03.2023
Annexure C2 Reply to Annexure C1 notice dated
31.03.2023 received from NHAI
Annexure C3 Work memo handed over by the counsel for
the petitioners along with opinion of the
expert engaged by the petitioners
Annexure C4 Details of the officials present during
site inspection
Annexure C5 Commission notice dated 03.04.2023 given to
the impleading petitioners
Annexure C6 Representation given to the advocate
commissioner by the impleading petitioners
and others
Annexure C7 Photographs of certain buildings taken
during site inspection
Annexure C8 Expert opinion dated 15.05.2023 received
from the Project Director, NHAI PIU
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11425/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL02042501553/2023 DATED 28-03-2023
ISSUED FROM THE CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE
OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES
OF PETITIONER NO.1
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL02042501552/2023 DATED 28-03-2023
ISSUED FROM THE CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE
OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES
OF PETITIONER NO.2
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT
DATED 18-03-2023 ISSUED FROM THE
CHADAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT WITH RESPECT
TO THE HOUSE NO.506 IN WARD NO.8 OWNED
BY PETITIONER NO.1
Exhibit-P3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT
DATED 18-03-2023 ISSUED FROM THE
CHADAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT WITH RESPECT
TO THE HOUSE NO.507 IN WARD NO.8 OWNED
BY PETITIONER NO.1
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT
DATED 18-03-2023 ISSUED FROM THE
CHADAYAMANGALAM PANCHAYAT WITH RESPECT
TO THE HOUSE NO.505 IN WARD NO.8 OWNED
BY PETITIONER NO.2
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF
THE NOTIFICATION DATED 09-11-2022
RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE
PETITIONERS
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23-
12-2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.1
BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 23-
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
12-2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER NO.2
BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.4
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF KADAMBATTUKONAM-
ARAYANKAVU GREENFIELD HIGHWAY
NETTETHARA PORTION (CH NO.44/500 TO
46/00)
Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 06-
01-2023- 2(1) OF THE CHADAYAMANGALAM
GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.A1.7577/(121)/2022, DATED 25-02-2023
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PETITIONER
NO.1
Exhibit-P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.A1.7577/(122)/2022, DATED 25-02-2023
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PETITIONER
NO.1
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
03-04-2023 IN W.P(C) NO.11936 OF 2023
Exhibit-P12 A true copy of the report by a
technical expect, Mr.Thomas Mathew,
Superintending Engineer, PWD (Retd.)
Exhibit-P13 A true copy f the sketch accompanying
Ext.P12
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11936/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO
KL02042513414/2022 DATED 16.12.2022
ISSUED BY THE CHADAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE
OFFICER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
NOTIFICATION NO. S.O. 5404(E) DATED 9-
11-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19-12-2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. A1.
7577/(134)/2022 DATED 25-02-2023 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION 2(1)
MADE ON 06-01-2023 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM
GRAMAPANCHAYATH
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT PROPOSED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.02.2023
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the format published in
the official website of Ministry of
Road Transport and Highways
Annexure R1(b) True copy of judgment of this
Honourable Court dated 02.12.2021 in WA
NO. 1560 OF 2022, Salini V.S and Others
v. Union of India and Others
W.P (C) Nos.6338, 11425, 11936
36481 of 2023
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36481/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
GAZETTE DATED 09-11-2022 ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 3A OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OLD ALIGNMENT AND NEW
ALIGNMENT OBTAINED FROM THE GOOGLE
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE
OLD STUDENTS AND PERSONS OF THE
LOCALITY TO THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE
MANJAPPARA AREA BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 25/02/2023
