IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 26222 of 2008(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. POULOSE.P.V, S/O.P.M. VARGHESE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE,THIRUVANKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 305. 2. PRINCE P. PAUL ALIAS JOSEPH, S/O.P.V. POULOSE, PALATHINKAL HOUSE,THIRUVANKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 305. 3. VARGHDSE BABU.P, S/O. P.V. BABU, PALATHINKAL HOUSE,THIRUVANKULAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM - 682 305. 4. T.C. ELIAS, S/O. CHACKO, THILAKULATHIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY.P.O,ERNAKULAM. 5. VIJAYAN, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, THATTARATHIL HOUSE, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT. 6. CHAKKY GOURI, IDASSEERIL VEEDU, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. INDIRA, W/O. AYYAPPAN NAIR, IDASSERIL VEEDU, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 8. SARASWATHY, W/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, IDASSERIL VEEDU, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 9. SARASAN.A.T, S/O. KITTUNAIR THANKAPPAN NAIR, ARATHY, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.26222/2008 10. GEORGE, S/O. ULAHANNAN, THATTAMPARATH, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT. 11. JOY.P.T, S/O. THOMMAN, PLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 12. BEENA RAJU, W/O.C.V. RAJU, THURKKADA CHAKKALAYIL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 13. C.V. RAJU, S/O.T.C. VARGHESE, THURKKADA CHAKKALAYIL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 14. T.V. JACOB, S/O. T.C. VARGHESE, THURKKADA CHAKKALAYIL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 15. T.V. THAMPI, S/O. T.C. VARGHESE, THURKKADA CHAKKALAYIL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 16. SARAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. T.C. VARGHESE, THURKKADA CHAKKALAYIL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 17. VALSAMMA MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW JOSEPH, KOLANCHERIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 18. RAJAMMA, W/O. KITTUNAIR THANKAPPAN NAIR, AMBATTUPARAMBIL (SREEDEVI VILASAM), MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 19. KANAKAM.S.T, D/O. KITTUNAIR THANKAPPAN NAIR, AMBATTUPARAMBIL (SREEDEVI VILASAM), MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 20. NARAYANANKUTTY.T.P, S/O. LATE R. PRABHAKARAN NAIR, SREEDEVI VILASOM, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 21. CHANDRAMATHY RAVEENDRAN, W/O. RAVEENDRAN, KADAMOTH HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM. W.P.(C) NO.26222/2008 22. LEELA BALAKRISHNAN, W/O. BALAKRISHNAN, MULLAPPALLY, MURIYAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 23. MARY ABRAHAM, W/O. ABRAHAM, ANU NIVAS, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 24. SURESH.M.A, AGED 39, S/O.AYYAPPAN, MADALIKUZHY, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 25. SHAJAN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, MUKKADAKKAL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 26. REJI VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, MUTHARAKALAYIL, MATTAKKUZHY, VALIKKOLI.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 27. P. RADHAMMA, W/O.LATE T.K. MADHAVAN, RADHA MADHAVAM, NEAR DR.SUKUMARAN MEMORIAL COMPLEX, EROOR.S.P.O, THRIPUNITHURA. 28. SHAJI B THITTAYIL, S/O.T.S. BALAN, THITTAYIL HOUSE, MATTAKUZHY, VALIKKOLI.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 29. P.S. MANI, S/O. SANKARAN, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 30. K.K. MATHAI, S/O. KURIAKO, KAREEKATTIL, MATTAKKUZHY, KOKKAPILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 31. WILSON.P.P. S/O. PAULOSE, POLAKKAL, MATTAKKUZHY, VALIKKOLI.P.O, ERNAKLAM DISTRICT. 32. A.V. THOMAS, S/O. ULAHANNAN VARKEY, AMBATMALAI, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 33. M.K. KUTTAPPAN, S/O. KUNJAYYAN, MALAYIL, KOKKAPPILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 34. SASI.M.T, S/O. AYYAPPAN, MADALIKUZHIYIL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. W.P.(C) NO.26222/2008 35. RAJAPPAN, S/O. KUNJAN, MANAYAKKATTIL, THIRUVANKULAM, ERNAKULAM. 36. SIVAN.M.K. S/O. KRISHNAN, MULLAMKORATHUMALA, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 37. ANIL KOZHY, S/O. KOSHY, OLIKKARA, SASTHAMUGAL, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 38. BABY, S/O. MATHAI, OOMELIL, KAKKATTUKARA, KAKKAD.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 39. ELIAS.A.V, S/O. VARKEY, AMBATMALAL, KOKKAP9PILLY.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 40. K.C. GEORGE, S/O. CHERIYAN, KUNJUVEETTIL, MATTAKKUZHY, VARIKOLI.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 41. M.P. KURIAN, S/O. PATHROSE, MATHOKKAL, MURIYAMANGALAM, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 42. V.V. YACOB, S/O. VARKEY, VELLOOR HOUSE, MATTAKUZHY, VARIKKOLI.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 43. SELVAKUMAR.M.C, S/O.M.P. CHELLAPPAN, MANEKKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM. 44. UDAYAKUMAR.M.C, S/O.M.P. CHELLAPPAN, MANEKKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM. 45. ARUNKUMAR.M.C, S/O.M.P. CHELLAPPAN, MANEKKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM. 46. PURUSHAN.P.K, S/O. KUNJAN, PATTAM PARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM. W.P.(C) NO.26222/2008 47. KARUMBAN, S/O. KOCHEN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL, (MADALIKKAL), MURIYAMANGALAM KARA, MAMALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.S.SHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANPORT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKDS (D) DEPARTMENT, KERALA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.3, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. S.G. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R2 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, ALONG WITH WPC. NO.22772 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26222/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.7618/D3/2005/PWD DT. 8.4.05 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P2:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.17006/D3/06/PWD DT. 30.8.2006 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. P3:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO,.C7.18835/2003 DT. 12.7.07 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE MINUTES NO.C7-18835/03 DT. 23.7.07 SIGNED BY 3RD RESPONDENT (DIST COLLECTOR). P5:- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING EASTERN AND WESTERN PORTION OF THRIPUNITHURA BYE PASS. P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 5.6.02 IN OP. 9413/2000 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. P7:- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 3.5.02 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD NH (R)DIVISION, MUVATTUPUZHA TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER, N.H., TRIPUNITHURA. P8:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT. 25.5.02 IN OP. 9413/2000 FILED BY THE N.H. MUATTUPUZHA EX. ENGINEER. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER 22.2.07 IN WPC. 37198/2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLAM. P10:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.RN/NH/ 12024/11/2001 KL(F-7) DT. 11.9.01 ISSUED BY THE EXE. ENGINEER TO THE PRESIDENT, THIRUVANKULAM PANCHAYAT VIKASANA SAMATHI. P11:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C2/802/03 DT. 18.11.2004 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TO THE CONVENOR OF THE ACTION COUNCIL. P12:- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LATEST ALIGNMENT. P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 29.7.08 IN WPC. 22772/2008 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKLAM. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)Nos.22772 & 26222/2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.22772/2008 are 27 in number and their grievance is that their properties are being acquired under the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act dispensing with enquiry under Section 5A for the purpose of constructing the Tripunithura Bye pass. The respondents in the writ petition are (1) Union of India, (2) State of Kerala, (3) The District Collector, Ernakulam (4) The Special Tahsildar (LA) (5) The Superintendent Engineer, National Highways.(6) National Highway Authority of India (since deleted) and the Cochin Refineries Ltd. Impleaded suo motu by this court as additional 6th respondent). 2. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the combined notification under Section 4(1) and Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is stated in Ext.P1 that enquiry under Section 5(A) has been dispensed with. Ext.P2 is copy of the declaration under Section 6. Ext.P3 is the communication issued by the District Collector to the 4th respondent on 11/9/2006 fixing the market values of the WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 2 various properties under Acquisition. Under Ext.P3, the Collector fixed the market value reducing the rates recommended by the land Acquisition officer in his draft valuation statement. Exts.P4 (a), P4(b) and P4(c) are copies of the representations submitted by the petitioners to the various authorities such as the Chief Minister, the Revenue Minister and the District Collector. Ext.P5 is copy of the reply sent by the Revenue Minister to the local MLA regarding the representations submitted by the petitioners. Ext.P6 is the copy of the reply of the Chief Minister. Ext.P7 is notice regarding a meeting convened by the 3rd respondent for discussing the issues arising out of the proposal for acquisition of land in Thiruvaniyur and Thiruvankulam villages. Ext.P8 is copy of the minutes of the said meeting showing the various decisions taken in the above meeting. The petitioners submit that on account of investment by real estate groups in the area pursuing all round developments with the emergence of Smart City,ICTT and LNG Project, the price of the land in that locality has increased by more than 10 times. According to the petitioners, it was suggested at the meeting by the participants that persons WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 3 owning lands on the eastern side of the Tripunithura bye pass (that reach of the bye pass passing through Thiruvaniyur and Thiruvamkulam villages) should not be discriminated by paying them compensation lesser than what is paid to the owners of the land acquired on the western reach. The petitioners say that the persons owning land on the western side of the bye pass are more advantageously placed and the alignment of the bye pass on the western side has not been finalised. The petitioners rely on Ext.P9 sketch which shows the eastern and western portions of the bye pass. Ext.P10 is copy of the judgment of a Division Bench in W.((C) No.34271/2007 under which this court directed the Principal Secretary to consider the grievance of the land owners. Ext.P11 is a copy of the judgment in O.P. No.9413/2000 filed by persons owning land on the western reach of the proposed bye pass and under Ext.P11 this court has observed that the Ministry of Surface Transport wants to re- examine the alignment of the bye pass to NH 49 link road II (Tripunithura bye pass). According to the petitioners, the Executive Engineer in his letter dated 3/5/2002 sent to the Chief WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 4 Minister has stated that change of alignment in the disputed portion will affect the entire alignment of the bye pass and that the work carried out in any section of the bye pass will become infructuous if alignment of the bye pass is changed in any of its reaches. Ext.P12 is copy of the letter of the Executive Engineer. The petitioners also rely on Ext.P13, which is a copy of the report filed by the Government in C.M.P. No. 41292/2001 in O.P. No.9413/2000, wherein it is stated that the Ministry of Surface Transport has intimated the President of Thiruvamkulam Panchayat Vikasana Samithi that work of the bye pass is to be considered in entirety for the whole and that the same is not to be taken up in a piece meal manner. Exts.P14 and P15 are errata notifications modifying certain areas which were mentioned in Ext.P1. Ext.P16 is an interim order passed by this court in W.P(C) No. 37198/2004. Under Ext.P16, the 5th respondent was directed to examine the proposal for development of the Cochin Refinery Road as bye pass for NH 49 from Petta to Puthencruz. The petitioners rely also on Ext.P17 communication from the Executive Engineer to WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 5 Thiruvamkulam Panchayat Vikasana Samithi to reiterate the contention that work carried out in the eastern reach of the bye pass without simultaneously taking up the work on the western reach of the bye pass, will become infructuous. Ext.P18 dated 18/11/2004 is the Superintendent Engineer's letter to the convener of the Action Council that the first 3.75 kilometres in the alignment of the bye pass cannot be altered. Ext.P19 sketch showing the latest alignment proposed is also produced. It is submitted with reference to Ext.P19 that it is seen that the authorities are examining the proposal to deviate the alignment from the railway line up to NH 47( the alignment relating to the western reach of the bye pass). The petitioners, accordingly, contend that the authorities have not yet finalised the alignment of the proposed bye pass. The petitioners submit that since acquisition proceedings are not yet started in respect of the western portion of the alignment, it is likely that persons owning lands on the western side of the alignment will receive much more compensation than what is now being offered to the persons owning land on the eastern portion of the alignment. WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 6 3. The petitioners have produced Ext.P20 copy of the National Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Policy declared by the Government of India in 2007. It is contended by the petitioners on the basis of Ext.P20 that they who are being deprived of their properties for the construction of the bye pass will have to be rehabilitated and resettled. The petitioners claim that in tune with the policy declared by the Government of India, various state Governments in India have been passed orders extending benefits of rehabilitation to persons who are being compulsorily deprived of their properties for implementation of major projects. They rely on Ext.P21 in this context. The petitioners refer to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill 2007 and point out that the bill specifically includes under Section 1A the provisions of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2007 in respect of the Acquisition of land by the appropriate Government. Raising various grounds, the petitioners pray for the following reliefs in the above writ petition. i). Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P1,P2,P3,P14 and P15. WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 7 ii). Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 6 to formulate and implement the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme for the affected families in the affected area in the light of Exts.P20 and P21. Iii). Direct the respondents to provide the benefits and concessions provided for the displaced persons in Kadamakkudy Village to the petitioners within a reasonable time. iv). Declare that the dispensation of Section 5A enquiry as per Ext.P1 and P2 notifications are unjustifiable and without the authority of law. v). Direct respondents 2 and 3 to communicate the decision of the Government in pursuance of Ext.P8 conference. vi). Declare that the criteria adopted for fixing the market value is illegal. WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 8 Vii). Direct the authorities to take de novo action for the formation of Tripunithura bye pas by taking into account all the relevant matters. Viii). Declare that the discriminatory treatment meted out to persons residing in the same area is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. Pleadings and prayers in W.P.(C) No.26222/2008 are more or less similar to those in W.P.(C) No.22772/2008. There are altogether 47 petitioners in this writ petition and the respondents are the (1) Union of India (2) State of Kerala, (3) The District Collector (4) The Special Tahsildar (LA) and the Superintendent Engineer, National Highways (5). Ext.P1 in this case is the combined notification under section 17(4) and section 4. Ext.P2 is copy of the declaration under Section 6. Ext.P3 is the notice regarding the meeting convened by the third respondent and Ext.P4 is the minutes of that meeting. Ext.P5 is WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 9 copy of the sketch showing the eastern and western portions of the Tripunithura bye pass. Ext.P6 is copy of the judgment in O.P. No.9413/2000. Ext.P7 is copy of the letter sent by the Executive Engineer to the Chief Engineer indicating that any change in the disputed portion will render work in the undisputed portion infructuous. Exct.P8 is copy of the report submitted in C.M.P. No.41292/2001 in O.P. No.9413/2000. Ext.P9 is the interim order of this court passed in W.P.(C) No.37198/2004 directing the 5th respondent to explore the proposal for development of the Cochin Refinery Road as bye pass for NH 49 from Petta to Puthencruz and file a report. Ext.P10 is copy of the communication sent by the Executive Engineer to the Thiruvamkulam Panchayat Vikasana Samithi stating that if alignment is changed in one Section of the bye pass, the work carried out in the remaining sections will become infructuous. Ext.P11 is the letter of the Superintendent Engineer to the Convener of the Action Council informing that the alignment cannot be changed in the first 3.75 kilometers. Ext.P12 is a sketch which will indicate that alignment was changed on number WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 10 of occasions due compelling reasons and it is contended that on the basis of such changes the authorities have not yet finalised alignment of the proposed Tripunithura bye pass. It is argued that if things are allowed to continue as they are moving now, persons owning lands on the western portion of the alignment will get much more compensation than what is being offered to the persons like the petitioners whose lands fall within the eastern portion of the alignment. In this writ petition also claims for rehabilitation and resettlement are made. The interim order in W.P.(C) No.22772/2008 is produced as Ext.P13. 5. As already indicated, the Cochin Refinery Ltd. were impleaded as additional 6th respondent in W.P.(C) No.22772/2008. Sri.P.Santhalingam, learned Senior Counsel based on Ext.P16 order of this court, submittted that that Cochin Refinery Ltd. will be interested in the proposal and that they will be prepared to shell out a substantial amount for the implementation of the alternative proposal mooted by this court in Ext.P16. The additional 6th respondent however filed a statement before this court stating that the Cochin Refineries are WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 11 not interested in diversion of the Tripunitura bye pass through the Cochin Refinery road and they are not in a position to share any portion of the cost for the construction of the bye pass road. 6. The 5th respondent Superintendenting Engineer has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the various contentions and grounds raised by the petitioners. It is contended in that counter affidavit that the alignment of the Tripunithura bye pass from Mattakuzhi to Kundannoor was approved by the Ministry of Surface Transport and Highways during 1997. The eastern portion of the bye pass starts from Mattukuzhi upto crossing of railway line Ernakulam – Kottayam railway line and the same has a distance of 3.868 Kms. It is submitted that this eastern portion of the bye pass is not subject to any shift or deviation from the approved route. 7. It is submitted that pursuant to the directions issued by this court in W.P.(C)No. 37198/04, on 22-02-2007 the Superintending Engineer examined the proposal for the development of Cochin Refinery Road as bye-pass for NH 49 from Petta to Puthencruz and a report is already filed submitting that WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 12 the proposal for change of alignment of Tripunithura bye-pass is not feasible since the said road will not exclude the portion between Irumpanam to Kundanoor which is existing NH49. It is pointed out that the very purpose of the bye-pass is to avoid the traffic congestion in the existing NH 49. It is then contended that an amount of Rs. 6.57 crores is alloted for the purpose of the bye pass and the land acquisition proceedings are at the final stage. Therefore any change in the alignment at this stage will ruin the entire project. The bye-pass which is now proposed between Mattakuzhi and Kundannoor is with the object of avoiding the ever increasing traffic jam in Tripunithura town including Petta junction. It is also pointed out that the Cochin Refinery road from Petta junction reaching the Puthencruz at NH 49 does not conform to the general guidelines for the construction of a highway. It is also submitted that detailed engineering survey and investigation is not done through this route which was not selected even at the project formulation stage. It is then pointed out that if the bye-pass is deviated through the Cochin Refinery road the length of the alignment will WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 13 become increased to 17.40 kms whereas as per the presently fixed alignment approved in 1997 the length is only 12.73 kms. It is further pointed out that due to increase in the number of motor vehicles during the last few years, heavy traffic jam have resulted in Tripunithura town and in Petta junction and that the situation is likely to become worse in the ensuing years. Therefore the idea of having a bye-pass was found inevitable for reducing hardship to the public. Ext.R5(a) sketch showing the existing national highway as well as the proposed Tripunithura bye-pass is produced and relied on. It is submitted that as regards the first reach of the alignment where procedure for acquisition has almost been competed there is no dispute regarding the finalisation of the alignment. Then at paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the Superintending Engineer enumerates certain draw backs which the proposed deviated road through the Cochin Refinery's road is having apart from its draw back on cost aspect. Referring to Appendix I of IRC, SP 19-2001 it is submitted that the proposed road through KRL road is not a direct highway linking and hence does not satisfy the above WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 14 general guideline which insist that highway should be as direct as possible between the towns and cities to be linked. 8. Another draw back pointed out is that the proposed KRL road will violate the guideline that the location should result in minimum interference to agriculture and industry. Yet another draw back pointed out is that alignment through KRL does not facilitate the desired gradient and thus violates the guideline “ the location should as far as possible facilitate easy grades and curvature”. It is pointed out that if the bye-pass is deviated through the KRL road the terrain will be hilly terrain which could not be eased without huge cutting and blasting of rock. 9. It is then pointed out that the alignment through KRL will interfere with places of worships and public facilities, thus violating yet another guideline given in Appendix I of IRC, SP 19-2001. It is also pointed out that an alignment through KRL will adversely affect the landscaping thereby violating the specification that the location of the highway should be fully integrated with the surrounding of the area. Most importantly, it is highlighted in the counter affidavit that the stretch between WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 15 Irumbanam and Petta ( falling within the KRL road ) is heavily built up area having high intensity of traffic and the very purpose of the bye-pass is to bye-pass this reach. Thus if the road is deviated, the very purpose of the bye-pass will be defeated. 10. The fourth respondent Land Acquisition Officer has also filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that pursuant to a requisition given by the Assistant Executive Engineer, National Highway, Ernakulam, the District Collector appointed the Special Tahsildar (LA) NH No. III, Vytilla as the land acquisition officer on 21-06-2004. Upon such appointment, notice under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act 1961 was published in the newspapers and in the gazette. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was approved by the Kerala government was published in the gazette on 25-04-2005 and in Deshabhimani and Mathrubhumi dailies respectively on 23-05- 2005 and 08-06-2004. Subsequently the erratum notification dated 22-05-2006 and 17-07-2006 were published in the gazette and in Mathrubhumi and Deshabhimani. It is submitted that public notice of the substance of Section 4(1) notification in Form WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 16 4(b) were made in Taluk, Village office notice boards and in the locality on 31-08-2005. It is highlighted that the last date of the publication of notice for the purpose of determining the period of limitation for declaration under Section 6(1) was 31-08-2005. It is submitted that, in this case, the declaration under Section 6(1) was approved by the Kerala government by notification dated 30- 08-2006 for acquisition of a total extent of land 11.50.03 hectares of land from various survey numbers in Thiruvaniyoor village and 3.73.18 Hectares of land from various survey numbers in Thiruvankulam village including lands belonging to the writ petitioner. It is submitted that declaration was published in Mathrubhumi daily and Deshabhimani daily. Referring to the judgment of this court in Mohammed Kunhi v. Union of India ( 1992 (2) KLT 336) it contended that the crucial is not the date of declaration, but the date of publication of the declaration. It is submitted that public notice under Section 9(1) was issued on 03-11-2006 inviting claims to compensation. Sketch Mahazer of the land was prepared. The detailed valuation Statement prepared by the land acquisition officer was approved by the WPC.Nos. 22772 & 26222 OF 2008 17 District Collector. Notices under Section 9(3) were sent to the land owners requiring them to appear and submit claim statements. It is contended that the land acquisition proceedings are in final stage. Though award enquiry notice under Section 9 (3) were issued to the petitioners, they did not utilise the said opportunity. It is pointed out that altogether there are 281 LA cases in Thiruvaniyoor and Thiruvankulam villages. A total extent of 2.89.10 hectares of land has been handed over to the requisitioning authority. It is also pointed out that draft award in most of the cases has been approved by the District Collector. Awards in a