IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No. 156 of 2009() -------------------- {IN WPC.23947/2006 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------ 1. KOCHU THRESSIA, W/O.GEORGE, VILAYATHIL VEEDU, ANJMOORTHY POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ALEX, S/O.JOSE, KANACHAYI VEEDU, VAINTHALA PALAYAMPARAMBU POST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. JOSE, S/O.GEORGE, VILAYATHIL VEEDU, ANJMOORTHY POST ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY PA HOLDER GEORGE S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT VILAYATHILM (H) GEORGE, VALLIYODE, ANJUMOORTHY POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD) BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND SURFACE TRANSPORT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. WA.No. 156 of 2009 :: 2 :: 2. THE ASSISTANT PROJECT DIRECTOR & MANAGER (TECH.) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PALAKKAD. 3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, S.L.A.O. & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, N.H.47, PALAKKAD. R1 BY ASG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY, Ag.C.J. & V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.A.No.156 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT GIRI, J. The petitioners, in W.P.(C)No.23947/06, are the appellants in this appeal. The writ petition was filed against Ext.P10 order passed by the 3rd respondent and also seeking a declaration that the petitioners' property is not required for the purpose stated in Ext.P1notification and that widening of NH-47 at the place where it adjoins the petitioners' property can be effected without acquiring their property. The learned single Judge considered the issue elaborately and by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition. It is aggrieved thereby that the present appeal has been filed. 2. The land belonging to the petitioners' forms part of a rubber cum teak plantation, which is situated adjacent to the NH-47. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued in Section 3 (a) (1) of the National Highways Act for acquiring the lands scheduled therein, finding that the lands belonging to the petitioners may be acquired, they preferred objections thereto. W.A.No.156 of 2009 :: 2 :: It seems that their objections were not considered and therefore, they approached this court in W.P.(C)No.15377/06 for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 objections. By Ext.P9 judgment, this court, taking note of the submission made by the respondents that an order has been passed on Ext.P2, court directed the respondents to supply the petitioners with a copy of the order. The petitioners then instituted the present writ petition challenging the said order passed on Ext.P2 and sought for other consequential reliefs, as already mentioned above. 3. They contended that the widening of the National Highway, at the particular place, can be made by acquiring the puramboke land and that their property need not be acquired. They further contended that the present alignment, as proposed by the authorities, has a curve. This curve can be avoided, if the existing road is straightened. They further contended that the present acquisition will involve the acquisition of a property, where a Mosque is situated and all these are unnecessary. W.A.No.156 of 2009 :: 3 :: 4. A detailed counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit have been filed by the respondents disputing the claim made by the petitioners, on facts. 5. It seems that the petitioners specifically sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local inspection and to report on the following aspects: “i. Giving opinion as to whether the widening of the road can be done without acquiring the petitioners' property by using the puramboke land on the western side. ii. Giving opinion as to whether the inclusion of the petitioners' property will increase or decrease the bend of the road. iii. Giving details as to the nature and extent of the puramboke land available on the western side of the road.” 6. The Commissioner conducted a local inspection, after notice to the parties and submitted a report. Regarding the first question of widening of the road without acquiring the petitioners' property and by utilising the puramboke land lying on the western side, the Commissioner reported that the property lying both on the eastern side and western side of W.A.No.156 of 2009 :: 4 :: the existing National Highway is being utilised for the widening of the road. He then went on to express an opinion that the acquisition of the petitioners' property also is necessary for accomplishing the widening of the road. He further opined that on acquisition, the existing curve will become a smoother curve and it will increase the visibility for the vehicles proceeding to Palakkad. The learned single Judge considered the Commissioner's report and the sketch and found that the Commissioner, during his inspection, has taken a measurement. In short, the Commissioner's report negatived the petitioners' contentions to a substantial extent. Faced with this situation, the petitioners sought for a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider their objections in Ext.P2 afresh. The learned single Judge declined this prayer finding that the petitioners had made a specific request before the court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to report on the aspects, which they highlighted in their objections. Now, that the report placed by the Advocate Commissioner has negatived their contentions, they cannot turn around and seek further consideration of their objections by the statutory W.A.No.156 of 2009 :: 5 :: authority. On an elaborate consideration of the materials, the learned single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ petition. 7. We heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan and learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 Mr.Thomas Antony. 8. We are in complete agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge. Mr.Sugunapalan submitted that the learned single Judge should have, after setting aside Ext.P10, directed the respondents to consider the objections filed by the petitioners in Ext.P2. The learned single Judge has rightly negatived this contention finding that the petitioners themselves had sought for a verification of their objections by means of a local inspection with the aid of an Advocate Commissioner. They resumed their plea for consideration of their objections in Ext.P2 only when they found that the report of the Advocate Commissioner did not support their stand. Obviously, this cannot be permitted and a plea in this regard was rightly negatived by the learned single Judge. 9. We are also in agreement with the findings of the learned single Judge that the acquisition of the property is W.A.No.156 of 2009 :: 6 :: obviously for a public purpose and the scope of interference of this court under Article 226 would be extremely limited. It could not have been gone into in the absence of the persons, who are on the party array, against whom such mala fides were purported to be alleged. It has to be remembered that the widening of the National Highway is obviously in public interest. There are no overwhelming circumstances pointed out by the petitioners to interfere with the acquisition proposed by the respondents for the widening of the road. In the result, finding that there is no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same. There will be no order as to costs. Sd/- (J.B. KOSHY) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge