IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 2067 of 2011(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ T.R. AUGUSTINE, S/O. RAPHAEL, THOTTUNGARA HOUSE, AROOR POST, CHERTHALA-688534. BY ADVS. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SRI.BINU MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1.NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT G-6, SECTOR 10 DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110072. 2. OFFICER IN CHARGE OF HIGHWAY ADMINISTRAION, PROJECT DIRECTORATE, 29/298A, MANGALYA VALIYA MADOM, VYTTILA-682 019. 3. SHRI. GEORGE, PROPRIETOR, ST. GEORGE AUTOMOBILES, PULLERKKATTU HOUSE, AROOR, CHERTHALA-688534. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R1 & R2 SRI.G.N.NAIR FOR R3 SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ...2/- WP(C).No. 2067 of 2011(G) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-12-2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA EXT.P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 07-05-2007 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FORWARDED ON 20-08-2007 TO VILLAGE OFFICER, AROOR EXT.P4 – TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07-04-2009 IN WP (C) No.11600/2009 EXT.P5 – TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 03-06-2009 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P6 – TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01-07-2009. EXT.P7 – TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10-07-2009. EXT.P8 – TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) No.19998/2009 DATED 17-07-2009. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS EXT.R3 (a) – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DISMISSING THE SUIT EXT.R3 (b) – TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 25-08-2009 EXT.R3 (c) – TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04-09-2007 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE AMG P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.2067 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioners is against the alleged callous inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in finalizing Ext.P6 and P7 proceedings; despite the fact that the challenge raised against the same from the part of the 3rd respondent by filing writ petition before this Court culminating in Ext.P8 judgment very much enables the 2nd respondent to have the proceedings finalized, as directed therein. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is the owner 32.50 cents of land in Sy.No.419/13 of Aroor village, which is situated on the eastern side of the approach road to the Aroor- Kumbalam Bridge and is near to the Toll Gate on the National Highway -47. The adjacent property situated is owned by the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent has encroached into a part of the property belonging to the petitioner and also to some area of the W.P (C) No. 2067 of 2011 2 property owned by the National Highway Authority of India. It was in the said circumstance that Ext.P2 complaint was preferred before the 2nd respondent for taking appropriate action against the 3rd respondent/encroacher, which did not evoke any positive response. In the said circumstances, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.11600/09, wherein, Ext.P4 judgment was passed on 7.4.2009, whereby the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent herein was directed to be considered with notice to the 3rd respondent herein, who has arrayed as 2nd respondent in the said proceedings. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the concerned authority, who passed Ext.P6 order dated 1st of July, 2009, whereby, a specific finding was rendered as to the encroachment by the 3rd respondent. This was followed by Ext.P7 notice dated 10th July, 2009 asking the 3rd respondent to remove the encroachment. Being aggrieved of the same, it was challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing W.P. (C) No.19998/2009, which was considered and disposed of at the admission stage even W.P (C) No. 2067 of 2011 3 without hearing the petitioner herein. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highway submitted in the above case, that the impugned notice dated 1st July, 2009, (Ext.P7 herein and Ext.P5 therein), shall be treated as a showcause notice under Section 26 (2) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 and accordingly, the matter was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment observing that if the petitioner therein appeared before the competent authority by filing his objections, a detailed order would be passed in terms of the Act, after hearing the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that in spite of the above direction, the matter is simply kept in cold storage, which made him to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the actual issue is between the petitioner and the said respondent, which has led to three different suits pending before the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala as O.S No.4/2007, 659/2007 and 655/2008. Reference is also W.P (C) No. 2067 of 2011 4 made to the interim orders passed by the Civil Court, as borne by Exts. R3 (c) and R3 (d). The learned counsel also submits that the suit in which Ext. R3 (a) interim order happened to be passed was subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner. It is stated that the National Highway Authority of India is not a party to any of the Civil Suits. 6. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the National Highway submits that the issue with regard to the encroachment made by the 3rd respondent was considered pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, leading to Ext.P6 order, whereby, it was found that there was encroachment at the hands of the 3rd respondent. It was accordingly, that Ext.P7 notice was issued to remove the encroachment, finally leading to Ext.P8 judgment, whereby, it was held that the said impugned proceeding would be treated as a showcause notice and that the proceedings shall be finalised, after hearing the petitioner. 7. The learned standing counsel also submits that the matter could not be finalised because of the administrative exigencies and that the same will be taken to its logical conclusion within the shortest possible time. W.P (C) No. 2067 of 2011 5 The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also submits that the facts and figures have been highlighted by the said respondent before the 2nd respondent in the form of a lawyer notice, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Ext. R3 (b). The learned standing counsel submits that the contents of the said notice will also be looked into when the matter is finalised. 8. In the above circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to consider and finalise the matter pursuant to Ext.P7, which has been ordered to be treated as a show cause notice as ordered in Ext.P8 and pass final orders, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. Steps in this regard shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge