IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2010 / 30TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 33556 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- S.SYLAKUMAR, GOKULAM, POTTAKUZHI, PLAMOTTUKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI. K.SIJU SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (N.H),PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NHAI, T/C 29/1539/1, RAJASREE, PERUNTHANNI,VALLKUDAV U.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SC FOR FOR R3 MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.33556 of 2009 (L) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner owns 4.05 ares of land in survey No.386/24-2 of Chenkal Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District. According to the petitioner, in the year 1992, the authorities of the Public Works Department fixed alignment for widening the National Highway and laid boundary stones earmarking a portion of his property for acquisition. 2. It is stated that there has not been any progress in the matter and that in the year 2004, the petitioner made an application for building permit and approval of a plan for construction of a residential house. Accordingly, Ext.P1 building permit was granted along with Ext.P1(a) approved plan. The petitioner states that on the strength of Exts.P1 & P1(a) he constructed a residential house, which was completed in 2008. 3. Subsequently, the NHAI authorities fixed alignment for widening the National Highway and earmarked area consisting of 4 WP(C) No.33556/2009 -2- meters inside the boundary fixed in 1992 for acquiring the earmarked portion of his property. According to the petitioner, if the acquisition is made on the basis of the said alignment, that will result in demolition of his house, if not in full at least partially. He sought change of alignment by filing Exts.P4, P5 & P5(a) representations, which are stated to be pending before the Designing Engineer of the NHAI. It is at that stage, this writ petition has been filed mainly praying for a direction to the respondents for change of alignment, so that he can save his residential house. 4. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the 3rd respondent, the Consultant appointed by them conducted a feasibility study and fixed a preliminary alignment, which was revised after inspection by the technical experts of the NHAI. It is stated that the project envisages widening of the existing two lane bye-pass to four lane from km 00/000 to km 22/600. It is stated that as at present, the feasibility study has been conducted and the alignment has been fixed. It is stated that finally a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 will be published, and it is only thereafter a proper survey will be WP(C) No.33556/2009 -3- conducted in terms of Section 3B of the Act. It is stated that only on completion of the survey can the respondents themselves be definite about the extent of the property that is required to be acquired. Therefore, according to the respondents, as at present, the writ petition is premature. 5. If as per the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, acquisition of property is initiated by a notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, which is followed by a survey conducted by the authorities. Statute itself provides that on publication of the notification as above, persons interested in the land, who are included in the notification, are entitled to raise their objections within the time specified therein. 6. As already stated, even according to the respondents, the extent of land required to be acquired can be finalised only after conducting a survey under Section 3B of the Act. Therefore, it is not the appropriate time for the petitioner to raise his objections against the alignment fixed. In that view of the matter, as at present, this writ petition is premature. Therefore, I close this writ petition leaving it open to the WP(C) No.33556/2009 -4- petitioner to raise his objection against the proposal after publication of the notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act. It is made clear that all contentions are left open. This writ petition is accordingly closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg