IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 W.A.No.2279 of 2008 ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.27437/2007-N, DATED 08/07/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:- -------------------------------------------- 1. ROSAMMA AUGUSTINE, ALUMMOTTIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. JOSEPH AUGUSTINE, ALUMMOTTIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ROAD AND BRIDGES), P.W.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D., KOTTAYAM. 3. THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM. 4. THE CHIEF TECHNICAL EXAMINER, FINANCIAL INSPECTION WING (PWD), SBTU BUILDING, PULIMOOD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.2279 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer,J. A small plot of land with a residential building therein, belonging to the appellants, was proposed to be acquired for construction of Changanassery bye-pass road. Appellants contended that the width of the road when it reaches their property was far in excess of other areas on the bye-pass road. According to the appellants, the proposal was to have a width of 24 meters in respect of their property, whereas the width in the other areas is only 15 meters. It was in that circumstance, the appellants had filed the writ petition, praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to follow the same width of 15 meters to the Changanassery bye-pass road while passing through their lands as well. (2) In the counter affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer, Roads Division, PWD, Kottayam, it was asserted that there was no irregularity or inconsistency in the line formation or specifications of the bye-pass road as alleged by the appellants. Alignment had been fixed in such a way as to have a minimum formation width of 15 meters at plane surface and more than 15 meters in the curved portions and in portions requiring cutting or filling according to necessity, so as to ensure a formation width of at least 12 meter for the road at such curves. It was further asserted that the width of the road W.A.No.2279 of 2008 - 2 - contiguous to the petitioner's property is 19 meters and not 24 meters as alleged and that since the road passing through the petitioner's property would require cutting for an average depth of 2 meters, extra land width is necessary to provide the required slope to both sides. (3) The learned Single Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the rival contentions of the parties, held that the contentions raised by the appellants were not at all valid or sustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. (4) The learned counsel for the appellants has conceded before us that there is no violation of the statutory formalities as far as issuance of notification, enquiry, etc. are concerned. However, he still persisted with his contention that the width of the road at the property of the appellants was in excess as compared to other areas through which the road is proposed to be constructed. However, having perused the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, we are not inclined to agree with the above contention. (5) As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the Executive Engineer had clearly stated that the property of the appellants was lying at a depth of 2 meters and a retaining wall had to be constructed and, therefore, the width had to be slightly increased in order to obtain a minimum road width of 12 meters. It is the definite case of the Executive Engineer, which has not been controverted by the appellants, that the road passing through the appellants' property would require cutting for an average depth of 2 meters W.A.No.2279 of 2008 - 3 - and hence excess land width is necessary to provide the required slope to the sites, since vertical formation is not practical. Therefore, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. More importantly, no malafides have been alleged against the respondents. (6) At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants invites our attention to Annexure A Circular, which is stated to have been issued by the Chief Engineer in the year 2002. According to the learned counsel, if the norms prescribed in the said Circular are followed, the cost of construction of the retaining wall would be much less and, therefore, he contends that the appellants would be entitled to get the benefits in the cost of acquisition. This is a matter which the appellants have to necessarily raise before the authority concerned, in which event, the said authority shall consider that request. (7) With that liberty reserved in favour of the appellants, we dismiss the Writ Appeal making it clear that we do not find any procedural or other irregularity in the acquisition proceedings. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge