IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27106 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.V. NARAYANAN, K.K.V. HOUSE, P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR 670 305. 2. C.P. HASHIM, S/O ABDUL KAREEM, VELLACHAL , P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR 670 305. 3. V.SHEEJA, D/O A. PADMANABHAN, P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR 670 305 4. A.KUNHAMBU, S/O V.V.RAMAN, P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR 670 305 5. B.P.SUGUNAN, S/O B.P. KUNHIRAMAN, P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR 670 305 6. B.P.JAYARAJAN, S/O. DO....IN DO..... 7. A.PADMANABHAN, S/O V.V. RAMAN, P.O. VENGARA, KANNUR - 670 305. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BUILDINGS), THIRUVANANTHAPRAM 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BUILDINGS), KANNUR. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS & BUILDINGS), KANNUR. 7. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUSITION), EZHIMALA NAVAL ACADEMY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. G.P. SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27106 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T On account of the fact that by the stay ordered by this Court, the full implementation of a prestigious Defence project of the country is being seriously affected, the matter is being heard and disposed of finally. 2. The petitioners are residents of Madayi Amson, Vengara Desom in Kannur District. The Madayi T.B. - Muttom - Palakkode - Ettikulam H.S. Road passes crossing the Kannur - Payyannur railway line at Vengara. As part of improvement of Muttom-Ettikulam H.S.Road, the respondents decided to construct a Railway over bridge in place of the existing Railway gate, for which an alignment was finalised. The petitioners suggested various alternate alignments for the road and overbridge, which, according to them, were more convenient and less expensive than the one accepted. The same of them were turned down. Subsequently, notifications under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act were issued. The petitioners challenged the notifications before this Court. By Ext.P7 judgment, this Court directed the 3rd respondent-District Collector to examine the matter. The District Collector, pursuant to the said judgment, directed a technical study and survey of the alignment proposed by the department as also the alternate one proposed by the petitioners. The same were w.p.c.27106/08 2 conducted and reports were received by the District Collector. The District Collector considered feasibility of the alternate alignments proposed by the petitioners based on the said reports. Ext.P11 is the order passed by the District Collector in that regard. The petitioners are challenging that order in this writ petition. 3. The petitioners, quoting various technical details enumerated in the writ petition, seek to disprove the reports relied on by the District Collector. But at the same time, they frankly admit that they have no allegations of malafides against any of the officers. Two reports were relied upon by the District Collector in Ext.P11. The first report reads thus: “If the alternate alignment is adopted, total five numbers of building structure (residential) and one well are proposed to be acquired and is valued approximately for Rs.18.30 lakhs whereas in the approved alignment 2 Nos. of partial RCC structure, 2 Nos. shops, 2 Nos. basement, one old tiled roof building and one RCC structure (fully) are proposed to be acquired which is valued roughly Rs.8.50 lakhs. So additional financial commitment for Rs.9.80 lakhs comes from acquisition of structures. As per the alternate alignment about 360 m. length of road is required for RoB approach for which 7200 m2 land area is to be acquired whereas in the approved alignment, it is reduced to 240m length of road and land required is 6600 m2 of land costing Rs.1.50 lakhs is required for land acquisition as per the alternate proposal. The alternate alignment of length 360 m passes through the marshy land whereas the approved alignment of length 240 m is through ordinary land. So additional expenditure is required for the construction of approach as per the alternate alignment for which an amount of Rs.16.50 lakhs is required. Based on the above facts, the alternate proposal costs an additional expenditure of Rs.27.80 lakhs for the acquisition (sic) land and structure and cost of construction. Hence the alternate proposal does not give any advantage to the Government when compared to the approved alignment.” 4. The Chief Engineer submitted his report in which the following observations were made. w.p.c.27106/08 3 “The approved alignment is more technically feasible option considering the IRC guidelines for the design of horizontal curves. The approved alignment has two 90 m radii horizontal curves at chainage 2/280 and at 2/490, whereas the alternate alignment proposed by the petitioners has a sharp bend at chainage 2/370 after a curve at chainage 2/280. An acute bend after a curve, within a span of 90 m will adversely affect the sight distance required for the vehicles plying in high speed. In the approved alignment efforts have been made to utilize the existing road to reduce the cost of construction. As per alternate alignment excess land is to be acquired and cost of formation of the RoB embankment will increase. But in the alternate alignment proposed by the petitioners, the number of buildings to be acquired is less. The alignment proposed by the department crosses the railway track portion at right angle, whereas the petitioners alignment crosses the railway track portion at a skew. As such RoB will have longer span. The land acquisition process along the approved alignment is in a final stage and the effected persons are mentally prepared for shifting their establishment to suitable places of their choice. Also if the alignment is changes (sic) there is a possibility of fresh litigations by the newly affected persons. Any change in the alignment will delay project further and it may cause difficulties since the Naval Academy is going to be fully commissioned in the beginning of 2009. In the light of the above it is seen that the proposal put forwarded by the department is the more suitable and feasible one from the technical point of view.” 5. The Executive Engineer of the PWD submitted the following brief comparative estimate and costs for the alignment proposed by the Department and the alternate alignment suggested by the petitioners, thus: “Sl. No. Description As per approved proposal (Amt. in lakhs) As per alternate proposal (Amt. in lakhs) Difference between alternate & approved proposal 1. Amount required for land acquisition 16.40 18.00 1.60(+) 2. Value of structures 8.07 18.30 10.23(+) 3. Cost of construction for RoB approach road Nil 16.50 16.50(+) Total amount 24.47 52.80 28.33(+)” w.p.c.27106/08 4 6. The District Collector has also made a joint inspection of the area with the officials from the PWD Engineering wing and the petitioners in the writ petition. Perhaps in some of the aspects pointed out by the petitioners there may be some justification. But experts on the subject have gone into the two proposals in depth and did not recommend the alignment proposed by the petitioners, on an overall examination of various aspects of the acquisition, which recommendation was accepted by the District Collector. In the absence of allegation of malafides, I am not inclined to interfere with the same especially when, because of the stay ordered by this Court, a prestigious Defence project of the Government of India namely the Ezhimala Naval Academy is seriously affected. Therefore, 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