IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24361 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 80, S/O.SANKARAN, ADVOCATE, "SURYAKANTHI", AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. THRISSUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION, CORPORATION OFFICE AT THRISSUR. By GP SRI I V PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 24361 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is one among the plaintiffs in Ext.P1 suit. It appears that they own land adjacent to a proposed Model road for which acquisition is being made. On ground realities, the plea is that the caving off of land for the purpose of the road results in a situation where the petitioner will find it extremely difficult even to reach his home which would be about 7 to 8 feet above road level. The petitioner attributes this situation to a deviation in the original plan for the road in as much as, according to him, the original proposal was to have only a divider median of 1.5 feet width, while with the passage of time, the width of the median is proposed to be increased to 1 metre. Whether the median should be 1.5 feet wide or 1 metre wide is not a matter to be answered with the technical wisdom that the court may assume to have. This is essentially a matter for the authorities empowered and duty bound to fix the alignments in public interest and taking into consideration the fundamental principle Wpc 24361/2009 2 that in acquisition proceedings, least possible damage ought to be caused. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that what the petitioner aims is at a via media solution. For this, the balancing between public interest to acquire, and the private interest of the petitioner, has to be done by a competent authority, taking into consideration all relevant facts and factors. With this in view, it is ordered that if the petitioner makes a representation to the second respondent or to any superior authority of that respondent, the same will be considered in a pragmatic manner and a decision would be issued at the earliest. Writ petition ordered accordingly, leaving open all other contentions. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/10/9