IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 W.A.No.1333 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.10773/2006 DATED 24/01/2008 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:- ------------------------------------------ 1. M.K.SAJEEV, MAKKAPARAMBIL, KUZHUPPILLI, AYYAMPILLY P.O. 2. K.A.AYSHA BEEVI, D/O.ABDUL RAZAK, VALIYAVEETTIL, T.A.BEERANKUNJU ROAD, COCHIN - 18. 3. A.J.SHANAVAS, AMMANAMVEETTIL, A.S.SYED MOHAMMED ROAD, EDAVANAKKAD. P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD JUNCTION, COCHIN. 4. THE TAHSILDAR (LA), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. --------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1333 of 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. This Writ Appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.10773 of 2006 dated 24.01.2008 and the orders passed in R.P.No.457 of 2008 dated 08.04.2008. By the first order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the State is not making any change from the original alignment of the road/bridges. In the review petition, it was contended that the State Government could not have invoked the urgency clause for acquiring the land for the purpose of widening and reconstruction of the narrow bridges and the road. 2. It is appropriate to state here that a public spirited citizen was before this Court in W.P.(C).No.20388 of 2004, inter alia, requesting this Court to grant certain reliefs, including for widening of the road and also for repairing of the bridges which are in dilapidated condition. This Court, by order dated 23rd December, 2005, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition and, in that, had stated as under: “Counter affidavits were filed on behalf of the first and second respondents and thereafter an additional affidavit has been filed by the Executive Engineer, Roads & W.A.No.1333 of 2008 - 2 - Bridge, Ernakulam Division with Annexures R2(b) to R2(o) depicting the repairs of the seven bridges on Vypeen- Munambam road. In this additional affidavit, it is further stated that the reconstruction work of these bridges would be completed by the end of November, 2006”. 3. Placing on record the affidavit of undertaking given by the Executive Engineer, Roads & Bridges, Ernakulam Division, this Court had disposed of the writ petition granting them time till the end of November, 2006 to comply with the orders and directions issued therein. 4. After disposal of the writ petition, the respondents have taken effective steps to acquire the lands by invoking the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Act for the purpose of implementing the orders and directions issued by this Court and also for widening and repairs of the road and the bridges. 5. While disposing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, firstly, has noticed that the widening of the road is being done for the benefit of the people and, therefore, was of the opinion that interference with the notification issued under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act need not be interfered by him. Secondly, while disposing of the review petition, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the orders passed by this Court and, therefore, was of the opinion that the invoking of the urgency clause is wholly justified. W.A.No.1333 of 2008 - 3 - 6. We have gone through the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as in the review petition. We are fully convinced that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference in appeal. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judge vku/-