IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5633 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SURYAKUMARI, W/O.KESAVAN, 50 YEARS KARAYANKODE HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERRY PO., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGH WAYS AUT HORITY OF INDIA, NO.8/1187, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SLAO AND COMPATENT AUTHORITY, (LA) N.H.D.P., NEAR PALAT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD. ADV.THOMAS ANTONY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.5633 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of certain land by the side of a national highway. Steps for acquisition of land for widening of the national highway have been initiated. The petitioner's property also is proposed to be acquired. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application before the 1st respondent seeking exemption of two meters of his property from acquisition so that his building can be saved. By Ext.P2, the then Project Director of the 1st respondent recommended to the 2nd respondent to exclude two meters of the petitioner's property from acquisition and to furnish field measurement sketch for counter signature. However, later on, the successor-in-office of the 1st respondent issued Ext.P3 wherein by a very detailed order it was decided that the said portion cannot be excluded from acquisition. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order. According to the petitioner, after having issued Ext.P2 the 1st respondent does not have jurisdiction to pass Ext.P3 order. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the person who issued Ext.P2 order had subsequently been arrested on allegations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act subsequent to issuing Ext.P2. The successor-in-office examined the matter in detail and passed Ext.P3, wherein it was found that if the two metres are excluded it would w.p.c.5633/09 2 totally upset the entire scheme of the scheme. The 1st respondent would, therefore, argue in support of Ext.P3. 3. I have heard both sides in detail. 4. In Ext.P3 it is stated thus: “On the basis, it was decided to conduct joint inspection with Dy. Collector, L.A. N.H. & Special Tahsildar, L.A., NH No.II. The joint inspection was conducted on 02.02.09. the site was verified with the Dy. Collector & SLAO, Special Tahsidlar, L.A. NH No.II with their subordinate staff. The field was verified and matter was discussed in detail. Any change in the alignment will totally affect the project. As requested by the petitioner, the reduction of 2 meters from her side reflect the 2 meters shortage in width of the road. The alignment was already fixed and stone paved in both side of the road. If there is alteration in the alignment, the stones already fixed have to be pulled out. To every aspect, the project will delay inordinately as pointed by the Dy. Collector & SLAO, Palakkad. The petitioner failed to file objection before the SLAO and Competent Authority at the time of 3A notification while inviting objection. 3D notification were also issued in this survey numbers. The Superintendent of survey prepared new sketches for this land. In short, the survey works for the entire villages are in final stage. In the above circumstances, the request of the petitioner to reduce 2 meters from acquisition is rejected. The Special Dy. Collector & SLAO is requested to go forward with acquisition of land in question as per original alignment.” In fact from Ext.P3 I find that the successor-in-office had examined issue in very elaborate details and he has given cogent reasons in Ext.P3 as to why the property of the petitioner cannot be excluded from acquisition. I cannot in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India interfere with such reasoned finding especially in the absence of any evidence of malafides against the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.5633/09 3