IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1786 of 2009 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31998/2007 Dated 29/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- RAVEENDRA MENON , S/O.NARAYANI AMMA MADATHI HOUSE, NANDIKKARA MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G5 & 6 SECTOR 10, ROOM NO.420, DWARAKA NEW DELHI 110 045 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP) THRISSUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAKASH SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR FOR ADV. COMMNR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 1786 of 2009 APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OBTAINED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.07.2009 RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES WITH ENGLINSH TRNSLATION. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A. No. 1786 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. The appellant is before us in a second round of litigation challenging the acquisition of a portion of the property belonging to him in survey No.876/2 of Parappukara Village in Thrissur District. 2. It is not in dispute that on the first occasion an extent of 340 m2 of the property came to be notified for widening NH 47 passing through Parappukara Village and later on by the second notification, additional land in all 977 m2 in the survey number belonging to the appellant came to be notified. At that juncture, the appellant herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.10313 of 2006. This Court disposed the writ petition vide Ext.P10 judgment, wherein directions were given to the Special Land Acquisition Officer to consider the representation of the appellant and proceed with the matter. In response to such directions, an order, Ext.P12, came to be passed by the Land W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:2:- Acquisition Officer, which became the subject matter of instant writ petition. 3. In the writ petition the main contention of the petitioner/appellant was that in order to give protection to owners of land on the eastern side of the road, the concerned officers malafidely included the property of the present appellant for the purpose of widening NH 47 at the relevant spot, though the entire 977 m2 is not required for such widening. According to the writ petitioner, the suggestion for modification of the alignment by local officer is outside the purview of the Act concerned, as it has to be approved by the concerned authorities and no such permission or approval of the authorities concerned was taken before notifying 977 m2 of land for the acquisition. It was further contended that so far as the acquisition of 340 m2, the appellant never had any objection and in the light of the fact that by three successful acquisition of land, most of the land out of 20 cents belonging to the appellant came to be acquired. Therefore, there is no justification in the proposed land acquisition. W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:3:- 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, an Advocate Commission came to be appointed and report of the Commissioner was also placed on record which is referred to by the learned Single Judge. After referring to the details of the deficits and difficulty to arrive at a definite conclusion by the Advocate Commissioner, the learned Single Judge ultimately opined that, the fixation of the alignment of the National Highway in question is a technical matter and the proposal of the project is only for widening of the existing Highway which includes widening of bridges or construction of parallel bridges, therefore, the circumstances warrant leaving the matter to the best wisdom of the technical experts who suggest, advice and prepare the alignment of the road in question. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the inability expressed by the Advocate Commissioner would indicate that the Commissioner with the assistance of an expert like the Engineer was unable to identify and say whether the alignment proposed is actually required or not and what exactly W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:4:- would be the land required for the proposed alignment at the time of widening the National Highway road in question. Therefore, the authorities concerned ought to have resurveyed the entire land in order to arrive at a conclusion whether the entire 977 m2 are required or not, or whether 340 m2 of the land of the appellant alone would be sufficient for completion of the widening of the National Highway road in question. 6. As against this, the learned counsel for the National Highway authority took us through the detailed objection/statement filed by them to the writ petition of the appellant herein, in particular, paragraph No.3. On going through the objection/statement and judgment of the learned Single Judge along with other relevant material, we note that the existing National Highway stretch between Tamil Nadu-Kerala border to Kochi covering 18,040 to 349,000 k.m. was intended to be developed by converting the same into 'four lines/six lines' as and when required. However, as of now it is a four line road which is the subject matter for our consideration. The detailed objection/statement indicates that a feasibility study report is W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:5:- prepared before the actual approval of the project, whether laying four line road between Thrissur to Angamaly by widening the existing two line road is proper or not. Before the approval of the project, several experts and specialists in the modern Highway designing participated and the work was awarded to MELTCH-ECPFAAJV. The work of the company was started somewhere in July 2003 after conducting various site inspections and investigations including the survey between Thrissur to Angamaly and the said survey work was completed only in March 2004. The entire investigation and the project was submitted in 11 volumes which came to be verified and revised by the DPR expert of NHAI(National Highway Authority of India). After consultation process certain changes were indicated and again based on the suggestions given by the DPR, review expert of NHAI, modifications were also included after consultation with the technical experts. Thereafter approval of the project came to be made by the Corporate office at New Delhi. 7. After finalisation of this four line project, the procedure for acquisition of land commenced and as stated W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:6:- above, in the first instance, only 340 m2 an approximate area, came to be notified as the land to be acquired for widening of the road a per notification dated 14.01.2005. Subsequently, when a detailed survey on the ground came to be conducted. It reveals that an area of 876 m2 is needed for the project from the property of the appellant herein and 101 m2 from another property totaling to 977 m2 came to be notified as the extent needed for the widening of the road. 8. Paragraph 3 of the objection/statement further indicates that there was a sharp curve near the land of the appellant and for the removal of the sharp curve to straighten the NH 47 as suggested by the expert, excess or additional land was required and the resultant was issuance of the second notification acquiring 977 m2 . The respondent authorities have categorically denied any malafides or intentional exclusion of other available land by the concerned officials. As a matter of fact they have categorically stated that the land on the eastern side belonging to the Public Works Department, though available near the spot, the same cannot be used as it is not feasible to remove the sharp W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:7:- curve at the spot and only by acquiring the land of the appellant the sharp curve could be removed. Therefore, the material placed on record indicates that, unless 977 m2 of land is used for widening of the road by using the land of the appellant, the sharp curve near the property in question cannot be removed. 9. It is also pertinent to mention that the entire formation of four line road by widening NH47 is completed except for the bit involving the land of the appellant herein. When the land on the other side i.e. eastern side is not feasible for widening the road and with the completion of the formation of other portions of NH47 at this stage it would not serve anybody's purpose to accord the relief sought by the appellant. Even otherwise, when widening of the road is undertaken how an alignment of the road has to be made is to be left to the best wisdom of the technical experts concerned as they would take into consideration all the aspects of the matter for free flow of the vehicular traffic and also to minimize accidents as much a possible by making the road straight wherever it is required. 10. In the present case, the acquisition necessitated W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:8:- because of the sharp curve of the spot, therefore, the experts while making detailed survey opined that, instead of 340 m2 , 977 m2 to be used so as to make a straight NH47 removing the sharp curve. We find nothing wrong in this suggestion and nothing wrong in implementing the said suggestion of the concerned authorities. It is required on the part of the local authority also to give suggestions to the concerned authority what they come across while they surveyed the field and at the local inspection. Thereafter, if any feasible ideas are given, the same have to be implemented. All these exercises will be done only taking into consideration the public interest involved and not depending upon any particular individual. 11. Though a vague statement is made that interest of other private parties is saved by excluding their land and only acquiring the land of the appellant, no details of those persons are forthcoming and there is nothing placed on record indicating how the other lands would be of use to remove the sharp curve at the spot. The only material available is that of the land belonging to the PWD and we have also stated how this land is W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:9:- not useful for the straightening of the road remove the sharp curve. 12. Taking all these aspects the learned Judge having regard to the expertise of the technical experts which alone would guide the authority in question to form a road or widen the road was justified in saying that the Court should not interfere with the technical expertise of the experts, who advice the authorities which implement the project. This view of the Court is strengthened by a recent judgment of the Apex Court reported in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty [2011 (3) KLT SN 79], wherein their Lordships have stated as under: “NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in th field of highways. If comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development an maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Details project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy W.A. No. 1786 of 2009 -:10:- vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would subserve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The court can nullify the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.” Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also the law declared by the Apex Court, we are of the opinion, this Court cannot interfere with the acquisition proceedings in question to nullify the acquisition of land keeping in mind the large public interest involved in the matter. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Manjula Chellur, Ag. Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb