IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2011 / 14TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34833 of 2010(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.G.SAROJINIKUTTY AMMA, W/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN NAIR, AGED 80 YEARS, CHIRAMATTATHUMALIL, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 006. BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 3. TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.DIVISION, P.W.D.OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BRIDGES SUB DIVISION, P.W.D.OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 6. HARI, MANDAPATHARA HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 006. 7. BHAVANI AMMA, KOAPPAZHATHARAYIL, S.H.MOUNT, KOTTAYAM-686 006. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.34833/2010-D: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DTD. 11/09/1959. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT DTD. 09/04/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 13/08/2009. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE SURVEYOR SHOWING THE MEENACHIL RIVER, PROPOSED BRIDGE AND THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT FOR THE APPROACH ROAD DTD. 15/11/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT:- EXT.R5.A: COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT MAP OF THE PROPOSED APPROACH ROAD TO THE BRIDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.34833 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 4th January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, his sons and daughters claims to be the absolute owners in possession of 52 cents of land described as D schedule in item No.1 of Ext.P1 partition deed dated 11.9.1959, situated in Nattassery Kara of Vijayapuram Village. This writ petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to refix the alignment for the proposed approach road of the Vattamood Bridge and such other consequential reliefs. It is with a view to minimize the traffic congestion in Kottayam town that the aforesaid proposal to construct Vattamood Bridge across Meenachil river connecting M.C. road and Eranjal - Thiruvanchoor road was mooted and culminated in a governmental decision, in accordance with law. The contention of the petitioner is that a deviation of the way from the northern side would avert inconvenience and injury to himself and respondents 6 and 7, the party respondents. In essence, the requirement of the petitioner is for change of alignment of Vattamood Bridge approach road by acquiring equal extent of properties from himself and the 7th respondent. WP(C).No.34833/2010 2 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. It would reveal that three proposals have been examined by the Public Works Department, in detail, with a view to construct the Bridge in such a manner to minimize the hardships and inconveniences to the land owners. After such consideration, it was found that the present alignment is the most economical and feasible and accordingly the said alignment has been approved by the Chief Engineer, Roads and Bridges, Thiruvananthapuram. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the present alignment would pass mostly through garden lands without affecting any residential buildings. The contention of the petitioner is that the earlier proposal was abandoned on account of the influence exerted by certain persons. Though the petitioner has attributed malafides on the part of the authorities in changing the alignment, a perusal of the pleadings in this writ petition would reveal that no specific allegations of malafides have been raised in this writ petition. To interfere with a decision like the present one, on the ground of malafides, the allegations of malafides have to be specific and such allegations have to be established. I am of the view that the allegation of malafides raised in this writ petition is too vague and based on such a vague contention the decision for constructing a bridge for the aforesaid purpose cannot be interfered with. Indisputably, the said proposal is for a public purpose. WP(C).No.34833/2010 3 In a matter wherein a private interest is in conflict with a public interest, necessarily private interest has to yield to the public interest. The petitioner contends that he is having only 52 cents of land. He has two sons and two daughters and they got a proposal to construct residential houses in the aforesaid property. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it is stated thus:- “The bridge and the approach roads to the bridge have to be constructed based on the design standards and geometrics of the road. There should be some straight immediate approach to the bridge. The bridge and the approach roads could not be constructed in a zig-zag manner as demanded by the petitioner by acquiring equal share of land owned by the petitioner and 6th and 7th respondents. The land required for the formation of approach road is proposed to be taken through land acquisition procedure and not by free surrender. Ext.P3 has been already considered by the 5th respondent.” That apart, the statements in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit would reveal that at the request of the petitioner the centre line of the alignment of the road through the petitioner's land has already been shifted towards the right to minimize acquisition of the petitioner's land. 3. In the matter of fixation of alignment in relation to roads, an administrative decision cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it is tainted with malafides or colourable exercise of power or arbitrariness. The said position was settled by this Court in the decision in Assyst International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2009 (4) KLT 116). As WP(C).No.34833/2010 4 already noticed hereinbefore, evidently, three proposals have been examined and it is only after such detailed consideration that it has been proposed to construct the bridge through the present alignment. Even if it will cause inconveniences and hardships to the petitioner, it calls for no judicial review inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to establish malafides. As already noticed, all possible steps to minimize the acquisition of the petitioner's property have been taken. In short, there is no scope for any interference with the proposal and to direct the respondents to change the alignment in the circumstances explained above. Mere inconvenience that the petitioner may have to face cannot be a ground for interference with a project for a public purpose. For all these reasons, I am of the view that there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS