IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 1164 of 2009 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.36010/2007 Dated 16/12/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- C.K.JOHN, CHENNOTH HOUSE, P.O.ATHANI-683 585, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A.), NHDP UNIT, THRISSUR-680 020. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT AUTHORITY (L.A.), NHDP UNIT, THRISSUR-680 020. 3. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP. BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NH 47 ALUVA-MANNUTHY SECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, PALAKKAD. R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009 ALONG WITH WA 1165/2009 & 1761/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. Nos.1164, 1165 & 1761 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. These three writ appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since the primary issue involved and the relief claimed therein are common. 2. Small parcels of land belonging to the appellants were acquired for widening National Highway 47. Separate writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that there was no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants. Hence these appeals. Documents available in W.A.No.1761 of 2009 shall be referred to in the judgment, unless otherwise indicated. 3. We have heard Dr.Vincent Panikulangara, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 4. The primary contention raised by the appellants before the learned Single Judge was that the National Highway Authority of W.A.No.1164 of 2009, etc.. - 2 - India was not justified in acquiring more land than what was necessary, for widening National Highway 47. The bone of contention was that the extent shown in the notice issued under Section 3D((1) was at variance from the notice issued under Section 3A(1). For instance, it was contended that in the former notification the land proposed to be acquired was indicated as 63 sq. mtrs. whereas in the notification issued under Section 3D(1) it was 100 sq. mtrs. Similar variation in the extent shown in the two notifications in relation to the other writ appeals was also pointed out by the appellants in their respective writ petitions. For the sake of convenience we will extract the prayers made in one of the writ petitions, namely W.P.(C) No.27927 of 2007 against which W.A.No.1761 of 2009 is filed. “i) a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exts.P-1 and P-2 and quash the same; ii) issue a declaration that in terms of the Notification dt: 28/12/2005 under Sec.3D(1) of National Highways Act, 1956 respondents have authority to take from petitioner only the land required for widening NH 47 namely 0.0063 Hr. of land and not any thing more than that; W.A.No.1164 of 2009, etc.. - 3 - iii) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order commanding the respondents refrain from the unlawful attempts to take possession of 0.0037 additional land from petitioner's property in the name of the widening of NH 47 for purposes other than what is stated in the Notification dt: 28/12/2005 under Sec.3D(1) of National Highways Act. iv) a writ in the nature of mandamus or any direction or order commanding the respondents to dispose of Ext.P-3, after hearing the petitioner;” 5. The learned Single Judge after considering the case advanced by the National Highway Authority of India in its counter affidavit, took the view that the contentions raised by the appellants were totally misconceived and untenable. The learned Judge noticed that the proposed acquisition was totally in conformity with the National Highways Act, 1956 and that the acquisition was for a public purpose, namely for widening National Highway 47. It was also noticed by the learned Judge that at the particular place where acquisition was proposed was for developing the junction where the Highway meets the road leading to International Airport at Nedumbassery. In the other case, the proposal was to widen a road junction and in the third case, acquisition was for widening the W.A.No.1164 of 2009, etc.. - 4 - Chalakudy junction. It was further noticed by the learned Judge that the materials placed on record clearly revealed that there was no “excess acquisition” as alleged by the appellants. 6. The learned Judge also referred to Section 16(2) of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988 in this connection which, inter alia, provides that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the Authority may, for the discharge of its functions provide such facilities and amenities for the users of the highways vested in, or entrusted to it, as are in the opinion of the Authority, necessary for the smooth flow of traffic on such highways. 7. It may at once be noticed that Section 3A(1) notification in this case was published in January, 2005. In the said notification only approximate extent of the land proposed to be acquired was shown. Thereafter Section 3D(1) notification was issued indicating the exact extent to be acquired. It is beyond controversy that the persons interested in the land were heard and their objections considered as provided under Section 3C before Section 3D(1) notification was issued. Significantly, appellants W.A.No.1164 of 2009, etc.. - 5 - have no case that they were denied opportunity to be heard at any stage. 8. It is pertinent to note that in none of the three cases the appellants have chosen to produce either Section 3A(1) notification or 3D(1) notification. Ext.P2 in W.A.No.1761 of 2009 is the true photocopy of Section 3E(1) notification which is issued at the time of taking possession of the acquired land. We have referred to the above aspect only to indicate that the contention now raised by the appellants that the respondents had acquired lands in excess of what was actually shown in the notifications is wholly baseless and untenable. Similarly the contention that the respondents have acquired land in excess of what was actually necessary for widening the road is also totally misconceived. Appellants have made the above allegation on the basis of the so-called measurement allegedly conducted by themselves to find out as to what was the “actual extent necessary” for widening the road. 9. The materials produced by the appellants will not in any way help them to substantiate any of the contentions raised by them even assuming those contentions do carry some merit or W.A.No.1164 of 2009, etc.. - 6 - substance. Having carefully perused the pleadings in the writ petitions and the documents produced by the appellants, we do not find any merit at all in any of the contentions raised by the appellants. 10. In this context it may be further noticed that the appellants do not have a case that they have been picked and chosen for any discriminatory treatment. Admittedly, small parcels of land belonging to several land owners on either side of the Highway had been acquired pursuant to Section 3A(1) notification issued in this case. Petitioners have no case that larger extent of land was acquired from each of them while only lesser extent was taken from the other land owners. 11. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, widening of the Highway had become necessary in order to provide more convenience and facilities to the general public. 12. The authority has its own wherewithal and expertise in the matter. Widening of the National Highway was envisaged in order to provide more facilities and convenience to the general public, and as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge the proposed widening is intended to avoid accidents at the junctions referred to W.A.No.1164 of 2009, etc.. - 7 - above and also to ensure better transportation facility on the Highway. 13. In any view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that process of acquisition is not vitiated in any manner or that it is not in public interest. More importantly, in the absence of any material to show that the authority had acquired more land than what was actually required, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants. The writ appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns