IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011/13TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No.38324 of 2010 (M) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. K.R.SUBRAMANIAN, `SREE KRISHNA', 2/762, CANAL ROAD, KATCHERI ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-6. 2. V.SURESH, V.C.VILLA, KARAPARAMA, KATCHERI, KOZHIKODE-10. 3. DR.PRAKASAN.M.P., 2/747 A, DIVYA, KARAPARAMA, KATCHERI, KOZHIKODE-10. 4. M.JANAKI, MULLANKANDY HOUSE, CANAL ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-6. 5. DR.P.SATHYANARAYANAN, ABHILASH, KARAPARAMA, KATCHERI, KOZHIKODE-10. 6. ABI PAUL, POLINS, CANAL ROAD, KARAPARAMA, KATCHERI, KOZHIKODE-10. 7. V.SHOBI, VALLIL HOUSE, P.O.EDAKKAD, KOZHIKODE-5. 8. K.V.SREEDHARAN, MARUTHI NIVAS, CANAL ROAD, ERANHIPALAM, KATCHERI KOZHIKODE-6. 9. P.M.R.MOOSAKUTTY, J/4, JEEVAN, BHIMA NAGAR, KARAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE-10. BY ADVS.SRI.P.J.MATHEW SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. WP(C).No.38324 of 2010 (M) 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LA), FOR KOZHIKODE CITY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION) CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673001 5. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-32. BY SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION-R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA-R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-02-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.38324/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 24.11.2010. P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2010 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P3:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2010 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R3(A):A TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE CO-ORDINATOR KCRIP ON THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS. ANNEXURE R3(B):A TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE WHILE HEARING THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 38324 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners who are residing on the western side of Eranjipalam-Karaparambu mini by-pass road filed this writ petition mainly challenging Ext.P1 notification. Ext.P1 is the notification dated 24.11.2010 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The further prayers are for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-fix the alignment of the road in such a manner as to avoid demolition of the residential houses of the petitioners and to declare invocation of the emergency provision in Ext.P1 notification as arbitrary and malafide. It is also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to grant additional compensation to the petitioners as their land is going to be acquired for the third time for road widening. Ext.P1 would reveal the purpose of the proposed acquisition as widening of the aforementioned road. It is evident from Ext.P1 notification that considering the urgency of the matter emergent clause under section 17(4) was invoked and Section 5A enquiry was dispensed with. The contention of the WPC.No.38324/2010 : 2 : petitioners is that on account of the same they have lost their opportunity to raise their grievances and objections. According to the petitioners, for the purpose of widening the road in question, earlier, their properties were acquired twice. They further contend that widening of that portion of the Mini Bye pass road is absolutely unnecessary. On opening the newly constructed Ramanattukara - Vengalam by-pass the density of traffic through Eranjippalam-Karaparambu would be reduced by 75% and in such eventuality, vehicles proceeding to Ernakulam, Kannur, Kasaragod, Vadakara, Sabarimala would also take route through Ramanattukara - Venkalam by-pass, it is contended. In short, according to them, since the opening of Eranjipalam- Karaparamu Mini By-pass is in the offing there is absolutely no need to widen the road in question. It is raising such averments that the petitioners canvass the position that widening of the road in question is totally unnecessary and therefore, not in public interest. I am afraid, those contentions cannot be upheld. The petitioners cannot be heard to contend that no public purpose is involved in the widening of a mini by-pass road. Certainly, it is being done for a public purpose. There can be no doubt that in the matter of choice of land to be acquired, it is for WPC.No.38324/2010 : 3 : the Government to decide which land is most suited for acquisition. Such a decision, indeed, was taken considering the purpose for which acquisition is proposed. There is no allegation of colourable exercise of power. The statement filed on behalf of the third respondent would definitely reflect the element of general interest of the community in the acquisition in question. 2. There is a prayer to declare invocation of the emergency provision in Ext.P1 notification as arbitrary and malafide. As already noticed, a statement has been filed in this writ petition by the third respondent. It is stated therein that administration sanction has been accorded by the Government for land acquisition for improvement of the following 7 roads namely- 1. Stadium - Puthiyara 2. Karaparamba-Kalluthankadavu(Portion of Mini By-pass) 3. Vellimadukunnu - Kovoor 4. Gandhi Road - Mini By-pass 5. Mannanchira - Vellimadukunnu 6. Panathuthazham - CWRDM 7. Pushpa Junction - Mankavu Junction Administrative sanction of land in question in respect of the road in question which forms part of the Mini By-pass was WPC.No.38324/2010 : 4 : accorded by the Government as per G.O.(Rt.) No.1523/08/PWD. dated 8.9.2008. The statement made on behalf of the third respondent would reveal the reason for the decision to dispense with enquiry under section 5-A subject to the provisions under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. Apart from contending that it is arbitrary and mala fide no case has been brought out by the petitioners to support such contention. It is stated in the third respondent's statement that it was in view of the rapid increase in the number of road accidents that the Government considered it urgent to improve the road conditions. That apart, it is contended that, earlier, the second petitioner herein along with 13 others filed W.P.(C)No.12498 of 2010 before this Court raising similar contentions. That writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to file representations showing their objection with regard to the acquisition before the competent authority, against notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the competent authority was also directed to consider all aspects including the objections raised in Ext.P1, marked as such in the said writ petition, and also the representations for the filing of which permission was granted. In fact, the first petitioner herein was also a party to that writ WPC.No.38324/2010 : 5 : petition. It is specifically stated therein that two rounds of discussion with the parties concerned including the petitioners were made. The larger interest of the public was sought to be impressed upon. Virtually, in the circumstances, the petitioners are not justified in complaining against the invocation of urgency provisions on the ground of lack of opportunity to raise objections. Yet another contention of the petitioners is that there is no justification for widening the road in question to 18 meters. As can be seen from the statement, all those aspects were discussed in detail in the discussion held pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C)No.12498 of 2010. Merely because it is not in the liking of the petitioners this Court cannot compel the authorities to reduce the proposed width as any such interference would defeat the very purpose of acquisition. A decision made taking into consideration of all the requirements and circumstances and all other relevant factors does not call for intervention. That apart, it is evident that the petitioners do not have any contention that such a decision was taken solely for the purpose of acquiring the property belonging to the petitioners. The decision is, in fact, to acquire land in uniform width for about 5.5 Kms. The choice for the alignment of a road cannot be WPC.No.38324/2010 : 6 : interfered with by this Court. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that there is no justification or reason for interfering with Ext.P1 notification. With respect to the question of compensation, if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the compensation, when once it is awarded, it would be open to the petitioners to resort to appropriate remedies available under the Land Acquisition Act, for getting enhancement of compensation. When remedies are prescribed under the statute this court cannot issue a direction to the respondent to grant additional compensation, at this stage. There is no reason for this Court to presume that the petitioners would not be adequately compensated, in accordance with law. For all these reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and according it is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma