Kerala High Court
K.J.James vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 1 :
2025:KER:86
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/16TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 K.J.JAMES, AGED 61 YEARS
KANDARAPALLIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603.
2 ALEX THAYYIL, THAYYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603.
BY ADVS.
P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
K.P.SUDHEER
ANJALI MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THRIUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
*ADDL. MANJOOR VIKASANA SAMITHY, KURUPPUMTHARA,
R4 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.JOHN PAUL,
RESIDING AT THENGUMPALLY,
KURUPPUMTHARA, MANJOOR P.O.,
PIN - 686 603.
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 2 :
2025:KER:86
(*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20-10-2021 IN IA
1/2021.)
*ADDL. ROADS AND BRIDGES CORPORATION OF KERALA, LTD.,
R5 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 024.
(*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02-11-2021 IN IA
2/2021.)
*ADDL. MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
R6 MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
(*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.07.2022 IN IA
NO.4/2022).
SMT. N.SUDHA DEVI - SPL.GP
R2 - SRI. M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED - SC, RAILWAYS
SRI. BINU MATHEW
SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR
R6 - JUSTIN JACOB - SC
SRI. N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI
SMT. RESMITHA.R.CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.11.2023, THE COURT ON 06.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 3 :
2025:KER:86
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are residents of Kuruppanthara in
the Kottayam District. According to them, a Railway
Over Bridge (ROB) was constructed in Kuruppanthara
in 2017 on the Muttuchira-Kuruppanthara Road by
demolishing the old bridge and incurring a significant
expense. Now, steps are being taken to construct a
new ROB just 200 meters away from the one built in
2017 causing severe hardships to several people
including the petitioners, such as the loss of residence,
property, and business. It is stated that there is one
more over bridge on the other side within a distance of
1 kilometer and that, by the construction of the new
ROB, the first petitioner and his family would be
deprived of a property having an extent of 0.0228 Ares
2025:KER:86
in Sy. No. 199/11 and 12 with a portion of their
residential property and the second petitioner would be
deprived of 0.0050 Ares of land in Sy. No.711/9 and
his residence.
2. According to the petitioners, construction of a
new ROB within a distance of 200 meters of the
existing one is totally irrational and driven by ulterior
motives. It is contended that the acquisition of land for
the construction of the new ROB does not conform to
the statutory prescriptions under the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the RFCTLARR Act').
3. The District Collector, Kottayam, the 2nd
Respondent, issued Ext. P1 notification dated
20.05.2019 under Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act
2025:KER:86
authorizing one Anitha C. Chacko to conduct Social
Impact Assessment Study and to prepare a Social
Impact Management Plan, as provided by the
RFCTLARR Act. Accordingly, Ext. P2 Social Impact
Assessment Report was submitted on 19.09.2019. The
petitioners contend that Ext. P2 Report is severely
flawed due to a lack of proper consultation with the
affected people, insufficient notice, and limited
participation. The survey was conducted haphazardly,
interviewing only a few selected individuals. The
Report failed to address crucial aspects outlined in the
RFCTLARR Act, focusing instead on general
observations about the locality and nearby religious
institutions. There has been no study of the social
impact caused by the acquisition nor the necessity of
acquisition itself was examined.
2025:KER:86
4. The petitioners who are also the President and
the Secretary of the Action Council formed for
opposing the project submitted Ext. P3 objection
against Ext. P2 Report to the District Collector.
However, without considering the same, an Expert
Committee was constituted which on evaluation
approved Ext.P2 as per Ext.P4 report. It is contended
that there were only 6 members in the Expert
Committee as against the prescription of 7 members in
the RFCTLARR Act.
5. The petitioners state that Section 7 of the
RFCTLARR Act clearly outlines the matters to be
examined by the Expert Committee and the approach
they must adopt. However, Ext. P4 demonstrates that
the Section 7 proceedings have been rendered a
mockery, with no evidence of application of mind. The
2025:KER:86
fundamental question whether the project serves any
public purpose has not been addressed by the experts.
The necessity of an over bridge, when two already
exist on either side, was not considered by the expert
committee. It is also contended that the said report
was not publicized in the affected areas or among the
affected parties nor was the report forwarded to the
Panchayat and the Grama Sabha.
6. The petitioners refer to Section 8 of the
RFCTLARR Act which provides that the appropriate
Government shall also ensure that there is a legitimate
and bona fide public purpose, the potential benefits
and the public purpose referred to shall outweigh the
social costs and adverse social impact etc. It is
contended that the appropriate Government failed to
ensure these aspects.
2025:KER:86
7. Based on Exts. P2 and P4 reports, Ext. P5
preliminary notification dated 24.05.2020 was issued
by the District Collector under Sub Section (1) of
Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act. Aggrieved thereby,
the petitioners submitted Ext. P6 representation to the
District Collector and to the Minister for Public Works.
It is submitted that the said representation ought to
have been dealt with by the Collector as provided
under Section 15 of the RFCTLARR Act. However, no
action was taken by the District Collector and the
petitioners submitted Ext. P7 representation to the
Minister for Public works.
8. The expert committee report was published on
the website only on 27.05.2020. However, Section 11
notification was issued on 24.05.2020, i.e., prior to the
publication of the expert committee's report on
2025:KER:86
website. According to the petitioners, as per the
RFCTLARR Act, the report must be circulated in the
locality and published on the website. Only thereafter
the examination of the proposal for land acquisition
and Social Impact Assessment Report by the
appropriate Government has to take place. It is
therefore contended that, before the publication of the
expert committee's report, Section 11 notification
could not have been issued by the appropriate
Government.
9. The petitioners state that the existing ROB was
built only in 2017 after demolishing an old over bridge
and the present ROB is sought to be constructed within
a distance of 200 meters from the said ROB. The
petitioners refer to Ext.P8 photograph and state that
constructing a road from the area in question to the
2025:KER:86
existing over bridge would have been the appropriate
solution, if indeed any problem exists there on account
of the railway crossing and even the level crossing can
be closed. The petitioners also refer to Ext. P9 report
of a retired Superintending Engineer which would show
that the construction of a road to the existing over
bridge can be completed by expending Six Crores of
Rupees whereas the cost of new over bridge would
come to Sixty Six Crores of Rupees. It is also
contended that there is no valid No Objection
Certificate issued by the Railways for the appropriate
Government to go on with the proceedings. It is
contended that the action of the respondents is
extremely arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive and
it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners
under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
2025:KER:86
Accordingly, the petitioners seek to quash the entire
proceedings initiated as per Exts. P2 and P4 reports
and Ext. P5 preliminary notification. A direction is
sought to the respondents to drop the project of
building an additional ROB at Kuruppanthara as it is
superfluous and unnecessary.
10. This Court by order dated 13.09.2021 directed
the Indian Railways not to take any further action
without orders from this Court.
11. Initially, State of Kerala, the District Collector
and the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway alone
were arrayed as respondents. Later, the Manjoor
Vikasana Samithy, the Roads and Bridges Corporation
of Kerala and Manjoor Grama Panchayat got
themselves impleaded in the writ petition as additional
respondents and filed counter affidavits in opposition
2025:KER:86
to the averments in the writ petition.
12. A counter affidavit dated 10.11.2021 and an
additional affidavit dated 14.08.2023 have been filed
by the 2nd respondent, the District Collector. In the
counter affidavit, it is stated that there is inexplicable
delay in filing the writ petition challenging the
impugned notification. It is also contended that the
petitioners' attempt is to thwart a project
conceptualized in the public interest. Even though
petitioners claim that through several members of the
public other than those identified in Ext. P2 report are
affected, none of them have approached this Court
challenging the project or the acquisition. Furthermore,
it is contended that the petitioners have not been able
to bring forth any material that can disprove the
correctness of the expert assessment of the necessity
2025:KER:86
and viability of the impugned project, other than a
self-serving report commissioned by them and this
Court cannot sit in appeal against the discretion and
wisdom of the executive in choosing and implementing
a project in public interest. The 2nd respondent denies
the petitioners' contentions based on statutory
prescriptions as not sustainable. It is stated that,
contrary to what is claimed by the petitioners, Ext. P2
report addresses every aspect that is enumerated in
Section 4 of RFCTLARR Act. In Chapter IV of the
Report, the names of both the petitioners are shown as
affected parties and the loss caused to the petitioners
is recognized and is assured of being compensated
under the RFCTLARR Act. In Ext. P3 complaint, though
the 1st petitioner and three others have claimed to be
the owners of a matchbox production unit who are
2025:KER:86
allegedly affected by the project, those persons have
not joined the petitioners' cause, nor has the 1st
petitioner raised any claim for damages to the said unit
in the writ petition. However, Ext. P2 report refers to
damage anticipated to commercial and industrial units
which has been prepared after direct consultation with
their owners. The counter affidavit states that the
petitioners' allegation that the affected population has
not been consulted is baseless and is contradicted by
the report itself. The report shows how it has
addressed every issue that the petitioners allege it to
be silent on.
13. The counter affidavit further states that the
Government of Kerala have accorded Administrative
sanction for the construction of Kuruppanthara ROB
vide GO (Rt) No. 942/2017/PWD dated 10.07.2017.
2025:KER:86
The Managing Director, Roads and Bridges
Development Corporation of Kerala submitted a
requisition to the District Collector for acquiring an
extent of 0.8110 Hectares of land comprised in various
survey numbers of Block No.33 of Manjoor Village of
Vaikom Taluk in Kottayam District. Accordingly, the
Special Tahasildar LA (General), Pala was posted as the
Land Acquisition Officer for the above acquisition vide
Proceedings No. DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 dated
20.09.2018. The Revenue (B) Department also has
accorded sanction for the above land acquisition vide
GO (Rt) No.1069/2019/RD dated 04.05.2019. Ext. P1
notification under Section 4(1) of the RFCTLARR Act
was issued authorizing Smt. Anitha C. Chacko to
conduct Social impact Assessment Study. It is stated
that the notification was made available in all the
2025:KER:86
places prescribed in Section 4 (1) of the RFCTLARR
Act. The final report of the SIA Study was submitted
after conducting a public hearing which was held at
Manjoor Grama Panchayat Conference Hall on
16.08.2019. The report was also made available in all
the places prescribed in Section 6(1) of the RFCTLARR
Act. As per Section 7(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, an
Expert Group to evaluate the SIA Study report was
constituted vide Proceedings No. DCK/ 7162/ 2018/G1
dated 29.10.2019. After examining and considering all
the reports and the recommendations, the report
submitted by the Expert Group was approved vide
Proceedings No.DCKTM/ 7162/ 2018/ G1 dated
16.01.2020. The Land Acquisition Officer has reported
that the report of the Expert Group was made available
in all the places as prescribed under the RFCTLARR
2025:KER:86
Act. Ext. P3 representation of the petitioners which
does not bear a date was received in the office of the
District Collector only on 05.03.2020. The preliminary
notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act
was approved by the District Collector, Kottayam on
24.05.2020 vide Ext. P5 and the same was published
in the Gazette on 16.07.2020. The 2nd respondent,
along with the additional affidavit dated 14.08.2023,
has produced Exts. R2(e) to R2(h) documents to show
that all the concerned officers have published the
expert committee report and the decision of the
appropriate Government approving the expert
committee report as mandated under Sections 7(6)
and 8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act. It is also stated that
the preliminary notification was published in all the
places mentioned in Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR
2025:KER:86
Act.
14. The counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent
further states that, in order to determine the extent of
the land to be acquired, the land was surveyed and the
survey Sub Division records were prepared. Presently,
action is under way to prepare the Basic Valuation
Report for the land and the building. Steps for the
preparation of Rehabilitation and resettlement package
by the Administrator under Section 16 of the
RFCTLARR Act are also being taken. An extent of
0.0128 Hectares of land in Survey No.199/11-5 and
0.0030 Hectares of land in Survey No.199/11-6 of the
first petitioner and an extent of 0.0043 Hectares of
land comprised in Survey No.711/9-1 of the second
petitioner are included in the acquisition proceedings
for Kuruppanthara ROB.
2025:KER:86
15. In the additional affidavit dated 14.08.2023
filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that Ext. P5
preliminary notification was published in the extra
ordinary gazette dated 16.07.2020, even though the
same was approved on 24.05.2020. The publication of
the expert committee report in the website was on
27.05.2020. It is contended that when the expert
committee report was published on time in all other
relevant places, the belated publication in the website
of the District Collector cannot vitiate the proceedings.
It is further stated that the Expert Committee
consisted of seven members as stipulated in the
RFCTLARR Act. It is also stated that, at present,
awards have been passed in 61 LA cases out of 68
cases and on account of the status quo order passed
by this Court on 08.12.2022, the amount of
2025:KER:86
compensation could not be disbursed to the land
owners.
16. A statement as well as a counter affidavit has
been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated
that for the construction of an ROB in place of Level
Cross No.22 at kilometer 41/128 in the Kuruppanthara
yard of the Ernakulam-Kottayam Section, the land
acquisitions are being carried out by the State
Government, and the work is being undertaken by the
Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala.
It is the national policy of the Government of India to
construct ROBs in place of level crossings once the
Train-Vehicle Unit passes more than one lakh units. It
is stated that every year, the Railways will advise the
concerned State Government of the list of level
crossings where the Total Vehicle Units exceed one
2025:KER:86
lakh. The work is undertaken by the Railways and the
State Government in cost sharing basis of 50: 50. It is
stated that a national policy has been formulated by
the Government of India to eliminate all level crossings
either by construction of ROB, Rail under Bridge etc.,
whichever is the feasible method. The Train-Vehicle
Unit of Level Cross No.22 was 1,45,948 in the year
2021, exceeding the railway norm of 1.0 Lakh, making
it eligible for an ROB as per the national policy of
Government of India and railway safety policy.
Accordingly, Level Cross No.22 is identified by the
Railways and sanctioned for conversion into an ROB on
cost sharing basis. The level crossing in a railway
system is identified as an unsafe feature, and any
accident at a level crossing is likely to be fatal and
must be eliminated. It is further stated that, being a
2025:KER:86
level crossing in the station yard, the closure of gate
will be more, and the precious time of the public will be
wasted, which will be a national loss. Furthermore, any
medical emergency vehicles heading to Kottayam
Medical College or similar destinations will not be able
to cross the level crossing, even in cases of
emergency. The road over bridge already constructed
was a reconstruction of the old bridge on the single-
line track, rebuilt as part of the track doubling project
to accommodate two tracks, approximately 300 meters
north of this level crossing. Constructing a parallel road
to the nearby ROB would require acquiring a significant
portion of land, including houses, agricultural lands
and shops, resulting in considerable expense and
wastage of time by traveling the additional distance.
Furthermore, it is stated that extra-strong barricades
2025:KER:86
will be necessary between the road and the track to
prevent vehicles from accidentally entering the track.
Further, junction improvements near existing ROB,
would be required. ROB No.356, mentioned by the
petitioners, was reconstructed as part of the railway
doubling project. It is situated approximately 300
meters away from the subject level crossing and is
located on a different road. The ROB at Kuruppanthara
is being constructed in lieu of level crossing No.22 at
railway Km 41/100-200 between Vaikom road and
Kuruppanthara railway station. It is stated that it is the
policy of the Railways to construct ROB/Road Under
Bridge for elimination of Level Crossings on
consideration of safety of public and
maintenance/operation of Level Crossings and that the
construction of the ROB is useful for the public for easy
2025:KER:86
movement without waiting at the level cross.
17. The 4th respondent, the Manjoor Vikasana
Samithi, an unregistered association of people from
Manjoor and nearby panchayats, states that its main
objective is to bring the ROB to fruition, in place of
level crossing at Kuruppanthara, which currently
divides the Manjoor Panchayat into two parts, and to
ensure free movement of people and vehicles to the
adjoining five panchayats. The Samithi, in its counter
affidavit, states that the proposed ROB would ensure
the right to free movement of people and vehicles from
the adjoining five panchayats, as well as the general
public using the State Highway No. 40 for various
purposes. The proposed ROB would replace Gate
Level Crossing No.22, located in Kuruppanthara, which
is currently closed for long hours each day to
2025:KER:86
allow train traffic to pass. The entire State Highway
and the by-roads get jammed due to the railway gate
being closed for hours, with vehicles queuing up for
kilometers. Considering these factors, the Manjoor
Grama Panchayat, the Kuruvilangad Grama Panchayat,
the Kallar Grama Panchayat, and various organizations
have passed resolutions in support of the proposed
construction of an ROB at the railway crossing in
Kuruppanthara. It is stated that the writ petition is
filed at a belated stage. Though there are about 49
land owners whose properties are being acquired for
the purpose of the ROB construction, only two
individuals have filed this writ petition claiming that a
small portion of their land will be acquired for the
project. It is stated that the entire population of five
villages, including those whose lands are to be
2025:KER:86
acquired, ardently supports the ROB and that the
contentions of the petitioners in the writ petition are
without any basis and are against larger public
interest. The contentions of the petitioners on merits
are also traversed in the counter affidavit.
18. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th
respondent, the Roads and Bridges Corporation of
Kerala Ltd. It will be apposite to extract paragraph 5 of
the counter affidavit which reads as follows:-
"5. The brief facts leading to the present
case are as follows:
i. The proposed Railway Over Bridge at
Kuruppanthara is in Alappuzha-Madurai
Road (State Highway 40), which intersects
State Highway 15 (Ettumanoor-Ernakulam
road) at Kuruppanthara junction. The level
crossing which lies in between
Kadathuruthy and Ettumanoor stations has
a Train Vehicle Unit (TVU) of 1.19 lakhs
during 2015 (Annexure) and now it comes
to around 1.45 lakhs (Annexure 2) which is
more than Railway's norms of 1.0 lakh and
hence the Level Crossing should be
2025:KER:86
replaced with Railway Over Bridge. The
value of Train Vehicle Unit at
Kuruppanthara Level Crossing, which is the
product of number of gate closures and the
vehicles per day, is 1,45,948.5 (Note: As
per the relevant railway norms a level
crossing becomes eligible to have over
bridge, if the Train Vehicle Unit there is
above one lakh. Moreover, replacing Level
Crossings with Railway Over Bridges are a
government policy in view of railway safety
and ideally all level crossings are to be
replaced with Railway Over Bridges). From
this, it is clear that most of the vehicles are
passing through the level crossing of
Kuruppanthara. The existing over bridge
which the petitioners mention is in an
alley/by-road and the vehicles passing
through this bridge is significantly lower in
number.
ii. That, during the gate closure at peak
hours at Kuruppanthara, the long queue of
the vehicles waiting at the level crossing
leads to traffic congestion at
Kuruppanthara junction and the nearby
town. This has become a serious issue of
public concern and various individuals,
social organizations and the local self
government began raising the issue
through demonstrations and
representations to the various levels of
Government functionaries. Many
panchayaths whose residents are affected
by the traffic congestion and delay passed
resolutions highlighting the necessity of
2025:KER:86
constructing a railway over bridge at
Kuruppamthara. A true copy of the
resolution dated 29/12/2016 passed by
Kuravilangad Grama panchayath is
produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT R5(a). A true copy of the
resolution dated 30/12/2016 passed by
Kallara (Vaikam) Gramapanchayath is
produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(b). A true copy of the
decision dated 31/12/2016 of the meeting
of Uzhavoor block panchayath is produced
herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(c).
A true copy of the representation dated
03/01/2017 submitted by the Sccretary,
Manjoor Gramapanchayath to the
Chairman, Development Council,
Kuruppamthara is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5(d). A true copy
of the representation submitted by the
Kerala State Pensioners Union, Manjoor
Unit on 07/01/2017 is produced herewith
and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(e). A true
copy of the representation submitted by
the social organization, N.S.S. Karayogam,
Manjoor P.O. to the Government on
09/01/2017 is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5(f). A true copy
of the representation submitted by the
social organization, S.N.D.P Yogam,
Kuruppanthara to the Government on
25/01/2014 is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5(g).
iii. That, seeing the utmost public
importance of the grievance raised by the
2025:KER:86
inhabitants, the Government of Kerala vide
GO. (Rt) No.942/2017/PWD dtd.
10.07.2017 have appointed the answering
respondent-Roads and Bridges
Development Corporation of Kerala Limited
(RBDCK) -as special purpose vehicle (SPV)
for the construction of Kuruppanthara
Railway Over Bridge in lieu of Level
Crossing No.22 at Kuruppanthara in
Kottayam district using funds from Kerala
Infrastructure Investment Fund Board
(KIIFB). A true copy of G.O.(Rt)
No.942/2017/PWD dated 10/07/2017 with
annexure is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5(h). The
construction of Railway Over Bridge in lieu
of Level Crossing no.22 (at km 41/100-
200) at Kuruppanthara in Kadathuruthy
constituency was included in the Budget
speech 2017-2018. The work was already
included in the Railway work programme
for the year 2013-14.
iv. The Detailed Project Report was
submitted before Kerala Infrastructure
Investment Fund Board for approval.
Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund
Board Chief Executive Officer as per its
order No.PWD-016-03-PA-01 dated
07.06.2018 had sanctioned an amount of
Rs.30.56 crore as project cost including
land acquisition cost. The above order is
produced herewith and marked as Exhibit
R5(i).
2025:KER:86
v. The requisition for land acquisition was
submitted to District Collector, Kottayam
on 10.07.2018 for an extent of 0.8130
hectares in various Survey No.'s of Block
33 of Manjoor Village, Vykkam Taluk in
Kottayam District. Accordingly, the District
Collector, Kottayam appointed the Special
Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) General, Pala
as the Land Acquisition Officer for the
above acquisition. As per GO No. (Rt) no
1069/2019/RD dated 04.05.2019
administrative sanction for land acquisition
was accorded by the Revenue Department.
vi. That, the District Collector appointed
Smt.Anitha C. Chacko, Manavath Karott,
Neericode, Kottayam for conducting Social
Impact Assessment study as per
proceedings No.DCKTM/7162/2018/G1
dated 25.04.2019 and issued as 4(1)
notification in Kerala Gazette No.29 dated
16.07.2019. A true copy of the 4(1)
notification dated 16.07.2019 is produced
herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(j).
The notification was made available in all
places as prescribed in Section 4(1) of the
Act. Accordingly the Social Impact Study
unit had conducted detailed survey and
field verification and submitted its draft
report on 08.01.2020 and this was
published as per the provisions of law.
viii. The Social Impact Study unit had
conducted public hearing held at Manjoor
Grama Panchayat conference hall as per
law under Section 5 of 2013 Act on
2025:KER:86
16.08.2019 after lawfully publishing notice
in form No.5 as per Rule 14(1) of Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Kerala Rules, 2015. A true
copy of the Form 5 notice dated
26.07.2019 and notice dated 09.08.2019
are produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(k) and EXHIBIT R5(l)
respectively. In the public hearing MP,
MLA, Gramapanchayat President, District
Panchayat member and other elected
representatives, Government Officials,
public, property owners and heirs
representing the land owners had actively
participated. A true copy of the
attendance sheet of the hearing held on
16/08/2019 is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5(m). It is evident
from SI. No.'s 12 and 33 of this hearing
list that both the petitioners were present
for the hearing.
viii. The Social Impact Study unit had
submitted its final report to the District
Collector and the Land Acquisition officer
had lawfully published it. A true copy of
the Social Impact Study is produced
herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R5(n).
The Social Impact Study unit had
concluded the report stating that "By the
completion of proposed Kurupanthara
Railway Over Bridge, the decade's long
needs of people are resolved. This project
avoids the traffic problems of this region.
The time & money loss and traffic jams
2025:KER:86
can be avoided here. The completion of
Kurupanthara Railway Over Bridge is
necessary". Hence the public purpose is
proved by the report.
ix. As per section 7 of 2013 Act, the
District Collector, Kottayam appointed the
Expert Committee consisting 7 members
as per proceedings
No.DCKTM/7162/2018-G1 dated
29.10.2019. The expert committee had
evaluated the Social Impact Study report
and submitted its report to the District
Collector. The expert committee had
approved the land acquisition proceedings
and recommended collector to complete it
as early as possible after determining
Rehabilitation and Resettlement packages
and issuing compensations considering
the public interest of the project. A true
copy of the Expert Committee report is
produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(o). The Expert Committee
had submitted its report stating that "the
location identified for the proposed Rail
Over Bridge is found suitable and social
impacts of the project is comparatively
less. The affected persons agreed for land
acquisition, if they get adequate
compensation". It also stated that "the
SIA agency had done extensive survey
and interactions with affected persons
and has identified the major concerns of
the people. All the stated objectives and
aims of the Social Impact Study are duly
addressed in the report. It can be
2025:KER:86
concluded that the project will be
beneficial to the public and the potential
benefits of the project outweigh the social
cost and adverse social impact. Hence the
committee strongly recommends for the
acquisition of the specified land".
x. After evaluating the Social Impact
Study final report and Expert committee
report, the District Collector, Kottayam
Satisfied with the report had issued order
u/s.8 of 2013 Act vide proceedings
No.DCKTM/7161/2018/G1 dated
16.01.2020. A true copy of proceedings
No.DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 Gated
16.01.2020 is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5(p). Section
11(1) notification was published in Kerala
Gazette Extra Ordinary No's.1700 dated
16.07.2020 and 1436 dated 15.04.2021.
A true copy of Section 11(1) notification
published in Kerala Gazette Extra
Ordinary No's.1700 dated 16.07.2020
and 1436 dated 15.04.2021 are
produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(q), and EXHIBIT -R5(r).
xi. On the basis of the 11(1) notification, the
Land Acquisition Officer conducted detailed
scientific land survey and the land acquisition
sub divisions were approved by Survey
Superintendent. Basic valuation report for the
land and valuation for the building were
completed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Rehabilitation and resettlement package eligible
for the affected persons were sanctioned by the
2025:KER:86
Land Revenue Commissioner,
Thiruvananthapuram vide proceedings
No.LR/7512/2021/ LR(C3) dated 28/05/2022
u/s.18 of the 2013 Act. A true copy of the
proceedings No.LR/7512/2021/LR(C3) dated
28/05/2022 is produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(s).
xii. On the request of the Land Acquisition
Officer, the land acquisition cost of
Rs.8,44,46,558/- and Rs.10,81,655/- were also
released to the Land Acquisition Officer on
06.04.2022 and 16.11.2022 respectively. These
letters are produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(t) and EXHIBIT-R5(u).
Subsequently declaration under section 19(1) of
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And
Resettlement Act 2013 had published by the
District Collector, Kottayam on 14.07.2022 in
Kerala Extra Ordinary Gazette No.2343. This
19(1) declaration is produced herewith and
marked as EXHIBIT-R5 (v).
xiii. At present, the land acquisition process has
progressed up to the award stage after duly
completing all procedures as per Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency In Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act
2013. The General Agreement Drawing also got
approval from the railways on 07/03/2023. A
true copy of the approved General Agreement
Drawing is produced herewith and marked as
EXHIBIT-R5(w)."
2025:KER:86
It is stated that the proposed ROB is in the State
Highway which connects three prominent Districts of
the State; namely, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki.
It is stated that the old over bridge referred to in the
writ petition was not on a railway level cross but over a
low lying railway line. The same is not even a bus
route. The construction of the present ROB will serve
a larger public interest. It is further stated that the
private interest of the petitioners cannot prevail over
the larger public interest of the inhabitants of the
affected area to have a proper ROB replacing the
existing level cross.
19. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the 6th respondent, Manjoor Grama Panchayat. It is
stated that the proposed ROB is highly required to
ease traffic and for the development of locality and the
2025:KER:86
existing ROB can never be an alternative for the
proposed ROB.
20. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners to
the counter affidavits of respondents 3, 5 and 6. The
petitioners have denied the averments made by
respondents 3 and 5 regarding traffic in the area
where the new ROB is proposed, stating that the heavy
traffic density was due to the construction of the
Manjoor ROB, which was completed in 2022 and the
Train-Vehicle Unit assessment mentioned in the
counter-affidavit of Southern Railway was conducted
during the reconstruction period of that ROB. Referring
to the averments in the counter affidavit of the 3 rd
respondent, the petitioners state that since ROB
No.356 was reconstructed as part of the track doubling
project, the width of the ROB has been doubled and
2025:KER:86
the road over which the new ROB is proposed can be
easily connected to the road where ROB No.356 is
constructed. It is contended that the Panchayats and
social organisations which passed resolutions and sent
representations demanding ROB have no say in the
matter.
21. Heard Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, the learned
Senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt.M.Sudha Devi,
the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and
2, Sri.Daya Sindhu Shree Hari, the learned counsel for
the 3rd respondent, Sri.Binu Mathew, the learned
counsel for the 4th respondent, Smt.Resmitha
R.Chandran, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent
and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned counsel for the 6th
respondent.
22. The circumstances leading to the issuance of
2025:KER:86
impugned Ext. P5 preliminary notification under
Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, as evident from
the pleadings, are as follows: The proposed ROB at
Kuruppanthara, located at the intersection of State
Highway 40 (Alappuzha-Madurai Road) and State
Highway 15 (Ettumanoor-Ernakulam Road), is intended
to replace the level crossing between Kadathuruthy
and Ettumanoor stations. According to respondents 3
and 5, the Train Vehicle Unit at this level crossing has
increased recently to 1.45 lakhs, exceeding the railway
norm of 1.0 lakh, making it eligible for an ROB as per
railway safety policy. During peak hours, gate closures
at the level crossing cause long vehicle queues,
resulting in traffic congestion in the area delaying even
medical emergency vehicles heading to Kottayam
Medical College or other critical destinations.
2025:KER:86
Accordingly, the local residents, various social
organizations and nearby Local Self Governments
raised the demand for an ROB to replace the level
crossing, through demonstrations, representations,
and resolutions submitted to various Government
authorities. Taking note of the grievance raised, the
Government of Kerala appointed the 5th respondent,
the Roads and Bridges Corporation of Kerala Ltd. as
Special Purpose Vehicle for the construction of
Kuruppanthara ROB to replace Level Crossing No.22 at
Kuruppanthara. The District Collector issued Ext. P1
notification dated 20.05.2019 under Section 4 of the
RFCTLARR Act authorizing to conduct Social Impact
Assessment study and to prepare a Social Impact
Management Plan. Ext. P2 Social Impact Assessment
Report was submitted on 19.09.2019. An Expert
2025:KER:86
Committee was constituted under Section 7 of the
RFCTLARR Act and they evaluated Ext. P2 Social
Impact Assessment Report and submitted Ext. P4
report approving Ext. P2 report. Based on Exts. P2 and
P4 reports, Ext. P5 preliminary notification dated
24.05.2020 was issued by the District Collector under
Sub Section (1) of Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act.
Ext. P5 notification was published in Kerala Gazette
dated 16.07.2020, as seen from Ext. R5(q). Later, Ext.
R5(v) declaration under section 19(1) of the RFCTLARR
Act was published by the District Collector on
14.07.2022 in the Gazette. The land acquisition
process has progressed up to the award stage. This
Court has passed an order of status quo on
08.12.2022.
23. The primary contention of the petitioners is
2025:KER:86
that the proposed ROB is unnecessary, as there is an
existing ROB nearby, within a distance of 200 meters.
It is contended that, by the construction of the new
ROB, the petitioners will be deprived of their property.
It is further contended that constructing a road on the
side way of the railway line leading to the existing over
bridge would have been the appropriate solution for
the problems that exist on account of the railway
crossing.
24. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Southern Railway, it is stated that the Government of
India's national policy mandates replacing level
crossings with ROBs, rail under bridges, or other
feasible methods once the Train-Vehicle Unit exceeds
one lakh. Railways annually inform State Governments
about such eligible level crossings, and the
2025:KER:86
construction is carried out on a 50:50 cost sharing
basis. Level Cross No. 22, with a Train-Vehicle Unit of
1,45,948 in 2021, surpasses this prescribed limit and
has been sanctioned for conversion into an ROB under
the national and railway safety policies. Level crossings
are considered unsafe, prone to fatal accidents, and
cause delays, including for emergency vehicles, leading
to considerable public inconvenience and wastage of
time. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents
indicate that the residents of the locality have long
been demanding for an ROB to replace the level
crossing. Adjoining Panchayats and various social
organizations have also supported this demand
through representations and resolutions submitted to
various authorities. The proposed ROB is in the State
Highway which connects three prominent Districts of
2025:KER:86
the State; namely, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki.
From the above facts, it is evident that the
construction of the ROB serves a public purpose and
acquisition for the construction of ROB is definitely a
public purpose. The contention of the petitioners that
the proposed ROB is unnecessary and unwanted
cannot be sustained.
25. According to the petitioners, there is already
an ROB within a distance of 200 meters from the
proposed ROB and constructing a road on the side way
of the railway line leading to the existing over bridge is
more than enough to solve all problems and the level
crossing can be closed. The Southern Railway in their
counter affidavit has stated that constructing a parallel
road to the existing ROB would require acquiring a
substantial quantity of land, including houses,
2025:KER:86
agricultural lands and shops, resulting in considerable
expenses. Further, extra travelling time will be required
as the ROB is located on a different road. It is also
stated that extra strong barricades would be necessary
between the road and the track to prevent vehicles
from accidentally entering the track. It also states that
further junction improvements near existing ROB will
be required. The Roads and Bridges Corporation of
Kerala Ltd., in their counter affidavit, has stated that
the old over bridge mentioned by the writ petitioners
was not on a railway level cross, but over a low lying
railway line and the same is not even a bus route,
whereas the proposed ROB is in the State Highway.
When experts in the field state that the existing
railway over bridge cannot serve as an alternative to
the proposed ROB, this Court cannot sit in appeal over
2025:KER:86
their decision.
26. The next contention of the petitioners is that
the entire proceedings culminating in the issuance of
Ext. P5 notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR
Act are vitiated by fatal flaws and do not conform to
the statutory prescriptions. 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,
2025:KER:86
which is to be published as per Section 6 of the
RFCTLARR Act at the designated places. The Social
Impact Assessment 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
2025:KER:86
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
2025:KER:86
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
2025:KER:86
Section 40. Section 11 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 in the (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; (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
2025:KER:86
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; (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
2025:KER:86
summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
27. It is contended by the petitioners that Ext. P2
Social Impact Assessment Report is severely flawed
due to lack of proper consultation with the affected
people, insufficient notice and limited participation. It
is further contended that the survey was conducted
haphazardly, interviewing only a few selected
individuals and the report failed to address crucial
aspects outlined in the RFCTLARR Act and that no
study on the social impact caused by the acquisition
was conducted, nor the necessity of the acquisition
itself was examined.
28. The District Collector, by Ext. P1 notification
issued under Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act,
authorized one Anitha C. Chacko to conduct Social
Impact Assessment Study and to prepare a Social
2025:KER:86
Impact Management Plan as provided under the
RFCTLARR Act. Ext. R5(j) is the gazette publication of
Ext. P1. The counter affidavits filed by respondents 2
and 5 would show that the Social Impact Study unit
had conducted public hearing at Manjoor Grama
Panchayat conference hall after giving adequate
publicity about the date, time and venue of the public
hearing to ascertain the views of the affected families.
The notice in Form-5 issued in terms of Rule 14(1) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Kerala Rules, 2015 has been produced by the 5 th
respondent as Ext. R5(k). It is stated that, in the
public hearing, the Member of Parliament, the Member
of Legislative Assembly, the Presidents of the Grama
Panchayats, the District Panchayat Member and other
2025:KER:86
elected representatives, Government officials, the
public, property owners and heirs representing the
land owners participated. The attendance sheet of
public hearing is produced as Ext. R5(m). Both the
petitioners and the wife of the 1st petitioner
participated in the hearing conducted on 16.08.2019
as is evident from Ext.R5(m). It is stated that, in the
public hearing, the petitioners did not raise any
objections to the proposed ROB in light of the existing
ROB. The only demand of the 2nd petitioner as could
be seen from Ext. P2 was that his building may be
excluded from the acquisition. Having participated in
the hearing, the petitioners cannot contend that there
was no proper notice or consultation. Therefore, there
is no violation of Section 5 of the RFCTLARR Act. The
Social Impact Study report was published in terms of
2025:KER:86
Section 6 of the RFCTLARR Act.
29. Yet another contention of the petitioners is
that the Social Impact Study Report did not contain
assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition
serves public purpose and that the Report did not
consider whether acquisition was necessary at all.
Going by the Social Impact Study report, it can be
seen that Ext. P2/Ext. R5(n) Report concludes stating
that by the completion of the proposed ROB, the
decade's long needs of people will be resolved and the
project avoids traffic problems of the region. It states
that, time and money losses as well as traffic jams can
be avoided by the construction of the ROB, and that it
is highly necessary to complete the ROB at the
earliest. Thus the Social Impact Study report carries
an assessment that the proposed acquisition serves
2025:KER:86
public purpose and acquisition is necessary. The Social
Impact Study Agency has addressed all matters
specified in Section 4(4) of the RFCTLARR Act.
30. Another contention of the petitioners is that
the Expert Committee also did not address the
question as to whether the project serves any public
purpose. The Expert Committee constituted under
Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act has submitted Ext.
P4/R5(o) report to the District Collector. The report
states that the project will be beneficial to the public,
with its potential benefits outweighing the social costs
and adverse impacts. The Expert Committee strongly
recommended the acquisition of land for the ROB,
noting that the identified location is most suitable and
the social impacts are relatively minimal. It was
observed that the Social Impact Assessment Agency
2025:KER:86
conducted an extensive survey and interacted with the
affected persons, identifying their major concerns. The
affected persons agreed to the acquisition, provided
they receive adequate compensation. The Expert
Committee recommended expeditious disbursement of
compensation to land owners and the rehabilitation of
the two individuals who may lose their houses partially.
Based on these evaluations, the Expert Committee
submitted its recommendation to the District Collector,
affirming that the project serves a public purpose and
the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and
adverse impacts. The Expert Committee's report is in
compliance with the requirements of Section 7(5) of
the RFCTLARR Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the
contention of the petitioners that the Expert
Committee did not address the question whether the
2025:KER:86
project serves any public purpose.
31. Regarding the constitution of the Expert
Committee, Ext. R2(d) would show that the Expert
Committee was constituted with seven members and
that the provisions of Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act
were not flouted.
32. The petitioners have contended that the
appropriate Government failed to ensure that there is
legitimate and bona fide public purpose and the
potential benefits outweigh the social costs and
adverse social impacts and there is nothing in Ext. P5
to show that such exercise was carried out by the
District Collector. The 2nd respondent has produced the
proceedings under Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act,
recommending acquisition, as Ext. R2(i). As noted,
Section 8(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act provides that, the
2025:KER:86
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)
provides 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. Section 8(2) provides that the appropriate
Government shall examine the report of the Collector,
if any, and the report of the Expert Group on the Social
Impact Assessment study. After considering all the
reports, it shall recommend the area for acquisition
that would ensure minimum displacement of people,
minimum disturbance to infrastructure and ecology,
and minimum adverse impact on affected individuals.
2025:KER:86
In Ext.R2(i), the District Collector while accepting the
report of the Expert Committee, refers to the report of
the Land Acquisition Officer, requisitioning authority,
the report of the Social Impact Assessment Unit, the
report of the Expert Committee. As noted, the Expert
Committee has opined that the project will serve public
purpose and the potential benefits outweigh the social
costs and adverse social impacts. Thus, Ext. R2(i)
ensures the aspects referred to in Section 8(1). The
ultimate goal is to ensure that the overall result is
positive for the society. Thus, the aforesaid contention
of the petitioners is also not sustainable.
33. Another contention of the petitioners is that
Section 11 preliminary notification was issued prior to
the publication of the Expert committee's report on the
website. The petitioners have produced Ext. P5 as the
2025:KER:86
preliminary notification published by the District
Collector in terms of Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR
Act. However, it is contended by respondents 2 and 5
that Ext. P5 is only a form of preliminary notification to
be issued by the District Collector under Section 11(1)
of the RFCTLARR Act. The Preliminary notification that
has been gazetted is produced as Ext. R5(q) by the 5 th
respondent and the same is dated 16.07.2020. Ext.
R5(q) is not under challenge in the writ petition. Ext.
P4 report of the Expert Committee was published as
provided under Section 7(6) of the RFCTLARR Act as
seen from Exts. R2(e) to R2(h). However, the report
was uploaded in the website of the District Collector
only on 27.05.2020. The Preliminary notification was
gazetted on 16.07.2020, as seen from Ext. R5(q).
Though there was a delay in uploading Ext. P4 report
2025:KER:86
on the District Collector's website, as long as the
Expert Committee report was published by other
means as provided under Section 7(6), the delay in
uploading the report in the website cannot invalidate
or vitiate the proceedings under Section 11(1) of the
RFCTLARR Act. In any case, the report was uploaded
before the preliminary notification was gazetted.
Further, the petitioners have no case that they were
prejudiced by the delay in uploading Ext. P4 report in
the website.
34. Though the lands belonging to about 60
persons are being acquired for construction of ROB,
only two persons have filed this writ petition objecting
to the acquisition. The construction of the ROB is as
per the national policy and safety policy of the
Railways. The grievance of the petitioners is that
2025:KER:86
certain portion of their land and residence will be
acquired for the purpose of construction of the ROB.
The personal inconvenience of the petitioners cannot
outweigh the larger public interest. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan
v. Union of India and Another [(2018) 17 SCC 324]
held as follows:
"58. In the aforesaid context, it
would be pertinent to point out that
there may be situations where
conflict may arise between two
fundamental rights. Situation can be
conflict on inter-fundamental rights,
intra-fundamental rights and, in
certain peculiar circumstances, in
respect of some person one
fundamental right enjoyed by him
may come in conflict with the other
fundamental right guaranteed to
2025:KER:86
him. In all such situations, the Court
has to examine as to where lies the
larger public interest while balancing
the two conflicting rights. It is the
paramount collective interest which
would ultimately prevail."
The construction of ROB on the State Highway, no
doubt, is for public purpose. The local residents, the
Local Self Government Institutions and Social
Organizations have long been demanding for an ROB
to replace level crossing at Kuruppanthara through
demonstrations, representations and resolutions
submitted to various authorities. It is part of the
national and safety policies of the Government of India
to replace level crossings with ROB or rail under
bridges and level cross No.22 is identified by the
railways and sanctioned for conversion into an ROB.
2025:KER:86
The projects of such nature having larger public
interest shall not be halted at the instance of two
individuals who would contend that the acquisition
would cause inconvenience to them. The construction
of the ROB and the acquisition proceedings cannot be
interfered with, on hyper technical grounds or on
hypothetical grievance of the petitioners. While
balancing the public interest against the private
interest, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary
jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioners.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
JUDGE
SPR
2025:KER:86
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18680/2021
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.DCKTM/7162/2018-
GI DATED 20.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
SUBMITTED BY SMT.C.CHACKO ON 19.09.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED THE
PETITIONERS AND OTHER AFECTED PARTIES BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF EXPERT COMMITTEE'S REPORT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.7162/2018-GI
DATED 24.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
UNDER SEC.II OF THE ACT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21.09.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.08.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
HON'BLE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS.
EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWIGN THE EXISTING BRIDGE AND
THE ROAD ON WHICH THE ADDITIONAL OVER BRIDGE
IS SOUGH TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY JAMES
JOSEPH, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (RETD).
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/05/2020
ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF
TEH COLLECTOR TO ADV. DON PAUL.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA-GENERAL), PALA TO THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.05.2020.
EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY TO THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2020.
2025:KER:86
EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
EXPERT COMMITTEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 16.06.2020.
EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND
RESPONDENT CONSTITUTING THE EXPERT COMMITTEE
DATED 29-10-2019.
EXHIBIT R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
TAHSILDAR DATED 19-02-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 17-02-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT R2(h) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
RDO, PALA DATED 29-02-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(i) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, DATED 16-01-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(j) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE
DISPUTED AREA.
EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2(2) DATED
06/10/201.
EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED
29/12/2016 PASSED BY KURAVILANGAD GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 30/12/2016
PASSED BY KALLARA ( VAIKAM) GRAMAPANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R5(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 31/12/2016
OF THE MEETING OF UZHAVOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
03/01/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MANJOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH TO THE CHAIRMAN,
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, KURUPPAMTHARA.
EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE KERALA STATE PENSIONERS UNION, MANJOOR
UNIT ON 07/01/2017.
EXHIBIT R5(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, N.S.S. KARAYOGAM,
MANJOOR P.O. TO THE GOVERNMENT ON 09/01/2017.
EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, S.N.D.P.YOGAM,
KURUPPANTHARA TO THE GOVERNMENT ON
25/01/2017.
2025:KER:86
EXHIBIT R5(H) A TRUE COPY OF G.0.(RT) NO. 942/2017/PWD
DATED 10/07/2017 WITH ANNEXURE.
EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PWD-016-03-PA-01
DATED 07.06.2018.
EXHIBIT R5(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED
16.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 NOTICE DATED
26.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 NOTICE DATED
09.08.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET OF THE
HEARING HELD ON 16/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R5(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT STUDY.
EXHIBIT R5(O) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT.
EXHIBIT R5(P) A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.
DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 DATED 16.01.2020.
EXHIBIT R5(Q) A TRUE COPY OF SECTION 11(1) NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY
NO. 1700 DATED 16.07.2020.
EXHIBIT R5(R) A TRUE COPY OF SECTION 11(1) NOTIFICATION
PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY
NO.1436 DATED 15.04.2021.
EXHIBIT R5(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
LR/7512/2021/ LR(C3) DATED 28/05/2022.
EXHIBIT R5(T) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.04.2022.
EXHIBIT R5(U) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2022.
EXHIBIT R5(V) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA EXTRA ORDINARY
GAZETTE NO. 2343 DATED 14.07.2022.
EXHIBIT R5(W) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED GENERAL AGREEMENT
DRAWING DATED 07/03/2023.
EXHIBIT R4(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE CUM
PROGRAM SHEET OF THE MANJOOR VIKASANA
SAMITHIRELATING TO THE VARIOUS PROGRAM
ORGANIZED AND HELD ON 2/12/2016, 3/12/2016
AND 7/12/2016.
EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED
3/1/2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MANJOOR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE CHAIRMAN, MANJOOR
VIKASANA SAMITHI, ENCLOSING THE DECISION
NO.11 DATED 20/7/2016 OF THE PANCHAYATH
COMMITTEE.
2025:KER:86
EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.II (1) DATED
27/12/2007 MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.4 DATED
29/12/2016 TAKEN BY THE KURAVILANGAD GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R4(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. VII-(8) DATED
31/12/2016 TAKEN AT THE ORDINARY MEETING OF
THE GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE UZHAVOOR BLOCK
PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R4(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. DCKTM/
7162/2018/G1 DATED 16/1/2020 OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM/ APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT
AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R4(G) THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERT GROUP'S / EXPERT
COMMITTEE'S REPORT WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF
THE SECRETARY, MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KOTTAYAM, ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR,
LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), PALA, DATED 19-
07-2023.
EXHIBIT R4(H) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION
CONTAINING THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM BEARING PROCEEDINGS NO.
DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 DATED 16-01-2020 TOGETHER
WITH THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT GROUP/EXPERT
COMMITTEE PUBLISHED IN THE 'MANGALAM' DAILY,
DATED 05-02-2020, ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL
TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), PALA,
DATED 19-07-2023.
