IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2008 / 4TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 10773 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. M.K.SAJEEV, MAKKAPARAMBIL, KUZHUPPILLI, AYYAMPILLI P.O. 2. K.A.AYSHA BEEVI D/O. ABDUL RAZAK, VALIYAVEETTIL, T.A.BEESANKUNJU ROAD, COCHIN-18. 3. A.J.SHANAVAS, AMMANAMVEETTIL, A.S.SYED MOHAMMED ROAD, EDAVANAKKAD P.O. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD(ROADS & BRIDGES), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD JN., COCHIN. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (LA), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, COCHIN. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 10773 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioners are the owners of land situated on the side of Vypin-Munambam route. There is a proposal to widen the road, and also to construct/reconstruct 8 weak bridges. Government accorded administrative sanction of 13.60 crores for widening of eight named weak bridges in Vypin-Pallipuram road. In fact, that work was undertaken as per the directions of this Court in W.P.(C) No.20388/2004. According to the petitioners, so far, none of the bridges are re-constructed, nor the work started. It is averred that petitioners own land on the western side of the Kuzhippilli bridge, popularly known as Chathangadu bridge. That was one of the bridges ordered to be re-constructed by this Court. According to the petitioners, there was an original proposal to acquire the land on either side of the existing road for the construction of the approach road. It is averred that subsequently, due to undue influence exerted by some influential owners on eastern side of the road, the respondents have dropped the idea of acquiring the land from the eastern side and property from the western side alone is now proposed to be acquired. W.P.(C) No.10773/2006 2 It is further averred that there is already a curve on the western side, and if further lands are acquired, that will only make the curve complex, thereby causing accidents. The petitioners are challenging the change of alignment from the eastern side to western side, on the ground that it is a mala fide action initiated by the PWD authorities, as per the undue influence exerted by certain influential persons. 2. Initially, on 11.7.2007, Government filed a counter in which it was stated that alignment going through the western side is feasible and less expensive. Subsequently, this Court directed the government to file a detailed affidavit. Accordingly, the Tahsildar, 4th respondent, had filed a counter affidavit. It was specifically averred therein that the alignment of all the bridges including the Kuzhipilly bridge was approved by the Chief Engineer. It was also contended that acquisition proceedings were sought to be initiated strictly on the basis of the approved alignment and that alignment had never been changed. It was also contended that there were some complaints regarding the acquisition of land for Kuzhipilly bridge. A meeting was convened by the District Collector, and it was attended to by the Njarackal MLA, Presidents of Grama Panchayat and Block Panchayats. W.P.(C) No.10773/2006 3 In that meeting, consensus was also reached to acquire the land from the western side. It was also contended that in the first phase, 4.5 m. width of the bridge will be constructed by the side of the existing bridge on the western side, in order to avoid disruption of traffic. After the construction of the first phase, the existing bridges will be demolished and the remaining half of the new bridge will be constructed in the second phase on the eastern side of the newly constructed first phase bridge. It was also stated that the total width of the bridge will be 13 M. after construction, and at present, an area of 3.33 Ares of land on the western side of the existing bridge will be acquired, and in the land sought to be acquired, there is only a compound wall and no buildings are situated in that plot. It was averred that as per the interim order passed by this Court on 29.6.2007, a meeting was convened at Collector's Camp Office on 7.10.2006. A general site inspection was conducted on 16.10.2006, and the total area to be acquired excluding puramboke land was fixed as 3.11 Ares of land. The total cost of the building in the area sought to be acquired will come to Rs.38,500/=, and on actual measurement, the total value of compound wall will come to Rs.5,976/=. It was W.P.(C) No.10773/2006 4 further contended that no buildings are situated on the land sought to be acquired, and if the contentions of the petitioners are accepted and the land on the eastern side is acquired, wherein there are number of buildings, and the total cost will be more than Rs.8,37,495/=. It was further averred that acquisition proceedings are strictly done on the basis of the existing alignment, and it is not possible to make any change in the existing alignment. It was also contended that if the alignment is changed, five buildings are to be demolished. It was further averred that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published and thereafter Section 6(1) declaration was also made. It was also contended that notice under Section 9 (3) was served on the first petitioner, but nobody appeared. 3. In view of the stand taken by the State that the State is not making any change from the original alignment, I do not find any reason to interfere with the acquisition proceedings. It is very clearly stated that the acquisition of land on the western side is less expensive and if the land on the eastern side is to be acquired, five buildings are to be demolished. Since, there is no material to show W.P.(C) No.10773/2006 5 that land acquisition authorities acted with mala fides, it is not possible to quash the land acquisition proceedings. So, the writ petition is only to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.