IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2008 / 20TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27624 of 2007(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ HALEED.A., S/O LATE ALIYARU KUNJU, ATHIYARAPU PUTHEN VEETTIL, PAZHAYATHERUVU, ARYANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, EX OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FOR GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRIDA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION(GENERAL), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 & R5 BY G.P. SHRI BASANT BALAJI R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR ,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.27624 of 2007 L ------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This is the third attempt of the against a land acquisition proceedings. This time he wants to issue a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer that at least one metre width of the space in between the compound wall of his house and the proposed acquisition should be left. Petitioner is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 12 cents of property comprised in Sy.Nos.2972/3 and 3018 of Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. There are two buildings situated in the property - T.C.14/363 and 14/473. T.C.14/363 is a tiled building and T.C.14/473 is a RCC building. For the purpose of widening Nandavanam-Bakery Junction road as a part of the Capital Region Development Programme for road widening in the Thiruvananthapuram City, a portion of the land owned by the petitioner was sought to be acquired. Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.10392/2004 before this Court challenging the notification. Before filing that Writ Petition he filed a representation before the competent authority which was marked as Ext.P8 in that Writ Petition. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to take a decision in Ext.P8 before dispossessing the petitioner. As per the directions of this Court, the High Level Committee considered Ext.P8 in E.P.(C) No.10392/2004 and a reply was given to the petitioner which is marked as Ext.P10 in this case. Petitioner was informed that there are two buildings. In Ext.P10 it is WP(C) No.27624/2007 2 stated that T.C.14/363 which according to the petitioner is a tiled building, is exactly at the bell mouth of the road connecting Nandavanam road to Panjapura- Palayam road He was informed that it is the only building which is projecting more than all other buildings in that locality and without acquiring that property the proposed improvements of the road are not possible. He was also informed that as a concession the proposed acquisition from the bell mouth is reduced to 3.1 metres from the original proposal of 5.5 metres. So land to a width of 3.3 metres together with the front portion of the sunshade of T.C.14/473 is to be demolished to a width of 50 cm. Challenging that decision the petitioner again filed W.P.(C) No.2577/2006. This Court after taking note of the fact that in Ext.P10 there is a proposal to demolish a portion of the RCC building held that if a portion of the building is acquired, the petitioner has a right to express his desire as per Section 49 of the Act, in which event acquisition can be made only subject to the conditions and provisions contained in Section 49 of the Act. This Court also directed that if the petitioner has any grievance after the issuance of Ext.P10 that shall be brought to the notice of the TRIDA and the same shall be looked into by the appropriate authority, in accordance with law. Petitioner was directed to file a representation before the TRIDA and the standing counsel for the TRIDA submitted that in case such a representation is filed, the same shall be considered by the High Level Committee. Accordingly the petitioner filed Ext.P12 representation which was considered by the High Level Committee and rejected WP(C) No.27624/2007 3 under Ext.P13. According to the petitioner he has absolutely no objection in acquiring any portion of the tiled building bearing door No.14/363. It is submitted that his grievance after the issuance of Ext.P10 was in respect of RCC building bearing door No.14/473. It is submitted that that grievance was not considered in Ext.P13. It is also submitted that in Ext.P10 the High Level Committee had stated that the tiled building is situated exactly at the bell mouth of the road connecting Nandavanam road to Panjapura-Palayam road. It is submitted that in Ext.P13 also the word used is as follows: “Your building is situated exactly at the bell mouth...........”. According to the petitioner that sentence alone is sufficient to show that the Committee considered the demolition of the tiled building alone and his grievance to leave at least one metre width land so that he can save the RCC building was not considered. It is also submitted that the building is situated at about 10 feet height from the road and if the proposed acquisition is made and the soil from the land acquired is removed, the petitioner will not be able to get down into the road at all and as there is no sufficient space left between the road and building, the building itself may be collaps. 2. Learned standing counsel for TRIDA disputed all the statements made by the petitioner. An additional statement was filed on 26.12.2007 in which the position was categorically stated. In paragraph 3 of the statement it was stated that apart from the extent shown in the alignment sketch while doing road widening work and for fixing the central line of the road, for correcting the width WP(C) No.27624/2007 4 variations allowance of minimum 50 cms. is necessary to avoid practical difficulties in road construction. It was further stated that at the time of taking measurement of the width of the road small variations are seen and in this reach it is 7.1 metres to 7.30 metres. It was further stated that at the time of taking possession of the property, survey work will be done by the revenue officials for preparing revenue sketch. It was asserted that the opposite side of the property of the petitioner is on the convex side of the curve and therefore more property is necessary on the concave side to reduce the curve. It was also asserted that the property of the petitioner is situated on the concave side and if more property is taken from the convex side it will only increase the curve which may adversely affect traffic safety and that is the reason for taking more extent of property from the petitioner's property than from the opposite side. It was asserted that no more extent of land other than what was actually required for widening the road will be taken from the petitioner. 3. In Ext.P10 there is a reference to two buildings. A reading of Ext.P10 will show that the old tiled roof building is situated exactly at the bell mouth of the road and there is no such statement regarding the RCC building. Petitioner was informed that the a portion of the sunshade of the RCC building is to be demolished. That is a reason why he approached this Court and this Court directed the High Level Committee to consider the grievance of the petitioner regarding RCC building. It is not clear from Ext.P13 order that which is the WP(C) No.27624/2007 5 building referred to in that order. Petitioner relying on the statement that the order refers to a building situated exactly at the bell mouth of the road has argued that that can only be the tiled building and not the RCC building. Since there are two buildings, the High Level Committee ought to have considered the grievance of the petitioner with reference to the RCC building separately and a decision rendered. So to avoid further confusion it is only just and proper that the High Level Committee once again consider the petitioner's request to spare RCC building bearing door No.14/473. High Level Committee should also consider whether the apprehension of the petitioner that because of the level difference between the building and road, the safety of the building will be affected, can be avoided by constructing a retaining wall using the funds of the Capital Region Development Programme. Such a decision shall be taken with notice to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it very clear that I am not expressing any opinion as to the request of the petitioner that at least one metre of land is to be left between the boundary of the petitioner's property and road. It is for the competent authority to take a decision on that aspect also. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE cks