IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8030 of 2010(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. P.KUNHAMMAD, S/O.POCKER, AGED 66 YEARS ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 'SHANIKHETH" MELADY AMSOM, KANNAMKULAM DESOM, POST PAYYOLI KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE 2. SASEENDRAN THARIPAYIL, S/O.KANARAN 50 YEARS, TRADER, RESIDING AT THARIPAYIL POST PAYYOLI, KOYILANDY TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. 3. T.T.DINESAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT SUDARSANA POST VATAKARA, VATAKARA TALUK KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,KERALA STATE. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, WITH ADDRESS FOR SERVICE MINISTRY ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS NEW DELHI. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA) NH-17 KOZHIKODE. 3. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA SC FOR N.H SRI. THOMAS ANTONY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.8030 OF 2010 (C) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P11 is a notification issued by the respondents under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956. Exts.P12 and P13 are the notifications issued under Section 3A(3) of the said Act. Petitioners' properties are also proposed to be acquired and the petitioners claim title over their property by referring to Exts.P1 to P10. On the publication of the notification they filed Exts.P14 to P16 objections. The matter is pending consideration of the competent authority. It is at this stage that this writ petition is filed. 2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners is that with the description of the property sought to be acquired as contained in the notifications referred to above, the land owners are not in a position to identify the property and for that reason the notifications are illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Bahori Lal V. Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (1970 Allahabad 414) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Competent WPC.No. 8030/2010 :2 : Authority V. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. (2005(13)SCC 477). 3. In my view however the writ petition is premature. As already seen, notifications which are challenged are those issued under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956. The Act itself provides that on publication of the notification the affected parties are entitled to file their objection and Section 3C provides that, on receipt of such objections, the competent authority has to hear the objectors, make such further enquiry and by order either allow or disallow the objections. In this case objections have been filed and the competent authority is yet to pass orders as required under Section 3C. Therefore, at this stage it is for the petitioners to canvass before the competent authority their objections including those raised by them in this writ petition and thereafter the competent authority is to pass appropriate orders in the matter. At this stage challenge is premature and for that reason, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the contentions. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 8030/2010 :3 :