Kerala High Court
Aby Eapen vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:39712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18237 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
ABY EAPEN,
AGED 39 YEARS,
PULLOLICKAL,
CHERUVALLY P.O.,
MANIMALA,
KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686543
BY ADV.SRI.C.R.SURESH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695001
2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
TC 11/339, SREEBALA BUILDING,
KESTON ROAD, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PROJECT DIVISION, PONKUNNAM,
PWD REST HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY,
KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686506
2025:KER:39712
W.P.(C) No.18237/2025
:2:
4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (PROJECTS),
TC 11/339, SREEBALA BUILDING, KESTON ROAD,
NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695003
BY ADV.
SRI.B.ASHOK KUMAR, SC
SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K., SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.06.2025, THE COURT ON 09.06.2025 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:39712
W.P.(C) No.18237/2025
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.18237 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The writ petition has been filed seeking to
direct respondents 2 and 3 to construct a retention wall to
provide lateral support to protect the petitioner's property on the
side of a road.
2. The petitioner states that the Government has
entrusted road widening work of Muvattupuzha - Punalur
Highway to respondents 2 to 4. The 3rd respondent was
developing the road between Plachery and Ponkunnam. The
petitioner's house is on the side of the said road. The
respondents have acquired a considerable portion of the
2025:KER:39712
petitioner's land. The respondents have cut the soil vertically
down at a depth of 12 feet and at a length of more than 70
metres. The petitioner's house has lost lateral support due to
the work.
3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 request dated
02.03.2020 to the 3rd respondent seeking to construct a
retention wall. The 3rd respondent, as per Ext.P2 reply dated
10.08.2020, informed that an inspection has been conducted
and the application has been forwarded to the supervision
consultant, for further action.
4. From information gathered under the RTI Act,
the petitioner came to know that steps have been taken to
inspect the place and a recommendation has been given
though a final decision is not taken. The petitioner again
submitted Ext.P5 application dated 21.10.2022 to the District
Collector. The petitioner learnt that the 4th respondent-Chief
Engineer (Projects) has directed the consulting Engineers
2025:KER:39712
Group and the contractor to complete the PAP work.
5. The petitioner states that the present stage of
the property is highly dangerous. The building in the property
is likely to tumble down during this monsoon. The
irresponsibility and omissions on the part of the respondents
cannot be condoned. The petitioner and family is forced to live
under threat to life due to the inaction and negligence on the
part of the respondents.
6. The 3rd respondent resisted the writ petition.
In the statement dated 26.05.2024, the 3rd respondent has
stated that the house of the petitioner is located 6.3 metres
away from the road boundary and there is hard rock / hard
laterite existing in this area. Therefore, there is no potential
danger to the petitioner's house and property. No protection
works are necessary.
7. The 3rd respondent further submitted that
though the construction of protection wall in front of the
2025:KER:39712
petitioner's property was included in PAP action plan, the EPC
contractor has not taken up the work citing that the rates
approved is not conducive for them.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and the
learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
9. The petitioner's house is situated on the side
of Muvattupuzha - Punalur Highway. A portion of the
petitioner's land has been acquired for development of the
Highway. The respondents have cut the soil vertically down at
a depth of 12 feet and at a length of more than 70 metres.
Ext.P9 photograph would show that the house of the petitioner
is likely to be damaged and even collapsed if there occurs even
slightest landslide.
10. Ext.P6 communication of the Chief Engineer
(Projects) would reveal that PAP works in this area was
included in the estimates and directions were given to complete
2025:KER:39712
PAP work in this area. The contention of the respondents is
that the contractor abstained from taking up the work stating
that the estimate is insufficient and he will incur loss if the said
PAP work is carried out.
11. When the petitioner has filed this writ petition,
the respondents have come up with a new reason that there
are no safety issues to the petitioner's house, as hard rock /
hard laterite exists there and a retaining wall is not necessary,
as it would be a wasteful expenditure.
12. As the petitioner's house is situated about 6.3
metres away from the road boundary, the road itself may not
face any potential threat. However, fact remains that due to the
road development work, earth has been removed at a depth of
12 feet and the petitioner's house now situates in a precarious
position as can be seen from Ext.P9 photograph. The
respondents therefore cannot ignore the potential danger
stating that there is hard rock / hard laterite existing in this
2025:KER:39712
area. As far as the petitioner and his family is concerned, this
is a matter of life and death for them. The change in the plans
of the respondents with respect to protection work, offends
Article 21 of the Constitution of India as far as the petitioner
and his family is concerned.
The writ petition is therefore allowed.
Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to construct a retention wall
or take any other protective measure to provide lateral support
to the petitioner's property on the side of the Highway.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/05.06.2025
2025:KER:39712
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18237/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P-1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02/03/2020 TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KSTP, PONKUNNAM
Exhibit P-2 A COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 10/08/2020 VIDE NO. P
N W/315/14 (PACKAGE 8 C)
Exhibit P-3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION MADE
UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE RTI ACT DATED
29/04/2022
Exhibit P-4 A TRUE COPY OF RTI REPLY DATED
27/05/2022
Exhibit P-5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM DATED
21/10/2022
Exhibit P-6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
24/12/2022 VIDE REFERENCE NO:
KSPT/2191/2019- AE7
Exhibit P-7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
08/05/2023 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P-8 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED
7/04/2025
Exhibit P-9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
