IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 846 of 2006(A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. OUSEPH THOMAS, AGED 67, S/O.JOSEPH, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, PALA. 2. S.A.THOMAS, AGED 58, S/O.AVIRAH, SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE, PALA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.P.J.JOSEPH SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.VIJO JOSE RESPONDENTS : ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, ROAD PROJECTS LAND ACQUISITION, RAJADHANI COMPLEX, KILLIPPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT ((KSTP), TRIVANDRUM. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP, PONKUNNAM. 7. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (NH), PONKUNNAM. WP(C).No. 846 of 2006(A) 8. MARIAKUTTY CHANDY, W/O. LATE K.M.CHANDY, (EX-GOVERNOR) KIZHAKKAYIL, PALA-PONKUNNAM ROAD, PALA. 9. M.J.VARKEY, (EX.M.P.) MATTATHIL HOUSE, PALA-PONKUNNAM ROAD, PALA. 10. T.M.PAUL, THEKKEDATH HOUSE, PALA-PONKUNNAM, ROAD, PALA. 11. NARAYANANKUTTY, VARIKKANIKKAL, PALA-PONKUNNAM ROAD, PALA. * ADDL. R12 IMPLEADED 12. SEBASTIAN CHANDY @ SIBY, S/O. LATE K.M. CHANDY, (EX-GOVERNOR), KIZHAKKAYIL, PALA-PONKUNNAM ROAD, PALA. *ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT R12 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/12/2011 IN I.A.NO.20212/2011. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.S.MANILAL FOR R1 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 13300 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 846 of 2006(A) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23.12.2004 EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CHIEF MINISTER ON 07.12.2004 EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02.05.2005 EXHIBIT P3(A): COPY OF LETTERS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 03.05.2005 EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING CURVES EXHIBIT P5 : SKETCH PREPARED BY A RETIRED SURVEYOR SHOWING THE FIRST PROPOSAL AND THE PRESENT PROPOSAL. EXHIBIT P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.06.2005 PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 03.07.2005 EXHIBIT P7 : PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PLANTING OF STONE BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE 1ST PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P8 : ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY OF 7TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R(1) : COPY OF THE STRIP MAP /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.846 & 13300 Of 2006 ---------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Common issues are involved in both writ petitions and hence the writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C).No.846/2006 is filed for a declaration that Exts.P1 and P6 notifications are null and void and that the respondents are not entitled to initiate steps pursuant to Exts.P1 & P6. The connected writ petition, W.P.(C).No.13300/2006, was filed for a declaration that Exts.P3 & P3(a) notifications are null and void and respondents are not entitled to initiate steps pursuant to Exts.P3 & P3(a) and for other incidental reliefs. 3. The matter relates to the acquisition of lands owned by the petitioners and several other land owners for upgradation of transport corridor to international standards. Both writ petitions relate to the acquisition of land for the very same public purpose. The facts mentioned in W.P.(C).No.846/2006 is referred to for the purpose of convenience. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.846 & 13300 Of 2006 4. Ext.P1 is the copy of the notification under Section 6(i) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act. Ext.P6 is the additional notification. Exts.P1 & P6 notifications are dated 22.11.2004 and 30.6.2005 respectively. Petitioners point out that Exts.P1 & P6 notifications are not notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the respondents are initiating steps for dispossessing the petitioners from their properties under the pretext of acquisition. So long as there is no notifications, as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring the properties of the petitioners, are issued, it is contended that taking recourse to Exts.P1 & P6 notifications published under the Surveys and Boundaries Act for the purpose of dispossession of properties of the petitioners is illegal and bad in law. It is also contended that the acts of the respondents in changing the alignment of the road without any proper enquiry is a malafide act and that no survey was conducted. 5. Respondents filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition. It is pointed out that petitioners' ::3:: W.P.(C).No.846 & 13300 Of 2006 properties and properties owned by several land owners are acquired for the purpose of up-gradation of transport corridor to international standards, that projects studies started during 1999, its design and alignment were finalised in the year 2002 & 2003, that the alignment were finalised, peg marked at site and boundary stones were put up during the year 2004. It is stated that the work was entrusted to a reputed Multi National Company and the project is funded by the World Bank. 6. Respondents in their counter affidavit pointed out that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette notification No.2521 dated 1.12.2004 and were also published in the dailies including the local dailies. It is further pointed out that 98% of the land have been acquired and that all the project affected parties and beneficiaries were given sufficient opportunities to file complaints and suggestions and parties were heard at various places. Respondents submit that the proposed road has been planned and designed for comfortable and safe transportation, that it will reduce the distance, provide improved surface conditions and will be a highly ::4:: W.P.(C).No.846 & 13300 Of 2006 useful project to the public and traffic system. It is also pointed out in the counter affidavit that at any point of time, there was no change in the alignment of road as alleged in the writ petition. It is specifically pointed out that no changes have been made in the original design. Respondents also produced Ext.R1 strip map. 7. Lands were required for the up-gradation of NH road for safety of transportation. It is pointed out that it is not possible to acquire properties from either side as suggested by the petitioners. It is stated that sometimes one side portion is acquired and in some area two sides were acquired. It is also pointed out that the Government had given opportunities to all the parties as provided under law and that there is no intention on the part of the respondents to forcibly evict the petitioners. It is further stated that the respondents are not able to commence the upgradation work of the road in the area where the properties of the petitioners are situated due to interim orders of this Court. The writ petitions are filed on the allegation that respondents are proposing to take possession of the properties without resorting to the procedure contemplated under the Land Acquisition Act. ::5:: W.P.(C).No.846 & 13300 Of 2006 In the counter affidavit it is pointed out that notifications have been published and proceedings were completed for acquisition of the entire properties for the purpose of implementing the project. It is also pointed out that notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition was notified in the Gazette, local dailies etc. The fact that the properties were sought to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act is conveniently suppressed by the petitioners. In the light of the statement filed by the respondents stating the procedures adopted and followed, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions and hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-