IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31998 of 2007(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAVEENDRA MENON, S/O.NARAYANI AMMA, MADATHIL HOUSE, NANDIKKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY MR.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, R5 & 6 SECTOR 10, ROOM NO.420, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110 045. 2. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA THRISSUR. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (NHDP), THRISSUR. R2 BY BY ADV.MR.THOMAS ANTONY MR.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR,ADV.COMMISIONER R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON 29/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.31998/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE MANGALAM DAILY DT. 14.1.05 UNDER SEC. 3A OF THE NATIONAL HIGH WAY ACT. P2:- COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER TO SHOW HOW THE PROPOSED NATIONAL HIGHWAY IS CROSSING THE PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE. P3:- COPY OF THE SATELITE PLAN SHOWING THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED STRAIGHT ALIGNMENT. P4:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN WPC. 16484/05 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P5:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 22.8.05 IN WPC. 16484 /05 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P6:- COPY OF THE FRESH NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED ON 30.1.06 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ON 25.3.06. P8:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ON 27.3.06. P9:- COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN WPC. 10313 OF 2006 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P10:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 27.6.07 IN WPC. 10313/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT, P11:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P12:- COPY OF THE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE NO.13-610/07 DT. 17.8.07. P13:- COPY OF THE MAP OF NATIONAL HIGHWAY SHOWING THE STRAIGHT LINE. P13:- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT PUBLISHED AS PER EXT.P1 NOTIFICATION ( IA. no.5747/2009) P14:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 23.4.09 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE I:- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ALIGNMENT SKETCH RELATING TO KM.282.000 TO 283.000 DT. 23.2.04. ANNEXURE II:- COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN OF THE PROPERTIES IN SURVEY NO.876 / PARAPUKKARA VILLAGE. W.P.(C) NO.31998/2007 ANNEXURE III:- COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE PROPERTIES IN PARAPUKKARA VILLAGE. ANNEXURE IV:- COPY OF THE ENLARGED SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN SURVEY NO.876 IN PARAPUKKARA VILLAGE. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R2(a):- COPY OF THE COVER PAGE OF VOLUME X OF THE DETAILED PROJECT REPORT WITH THE RELEVANT PAGES DT. 23.2. 04 SHOWING THE ALIGNMENT OF THE ROAD PASSING THROUGH THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. R2(b):- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE DPR CENTRAL LINE CO-ORDINATE TAKEN AT 10 METER INTERVALS FROM CHAINAGE 281800.000. R2(c):- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE SET OUT ALIGNMENT CO-ORDINATE AS PER THE FINAL PROPOSAL DT. 12.12.06 FROM KILO METER 280.00 TO KILO METER 290 TAKEN AT 10 METER INTERVALS. R2(d):- COPY OF THE TABLE SHOWING THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THE EXISTING CENTRAL LINE AND THE PROPOSED FOUR LANE CENTRAL LINE FROM KILO METERS 275.000 TO KILO METER 290.000. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.31998 of 2007-H = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 containing the decision rejecting his objections to an acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 2.An item of land belonging to the petitioner was notified for acquisition for a public purpose, to wit, the widening of National Highway in the Thrissur-Ankamaly sector. Initially, there was a notification proposing acquisition of 340 square metres of land belonging to the petitioner. He objected to that. Later, a fresh notification was issued. The total extent to be acquired from the petitioner in terms of that notification was 977 WP(C)31998/2007 -: 2 :- square metres. That was subject matter of challenge in WP(C).10313/2006. It was noticed that in terms of actual measurement, the area to be acquired from the petitioner is 876 square metres, as submitted by the National Highway Authority of India. Obviously, arithmetical precision cannot be insisted regarding the extent to be acquired, when notifications are issued. The land notified for acquisition is identified with reference to the notification but not with such precision as may be required to ascertain its extent for various purposes, including fixation of compensation etc. 3.By Ext.P10 judgment issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner was relegated to the official respondents for consideration of his representations. 4.As per the impugned Ext.P12, the third respondent Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer held that the scheme of the National Highway Authority of India is only for widening WP(C)31998/2007 -: 3 :- the existing road without changing the alignment and there is no proposal for construction of a new road. It was noticed that the alignment was finalized by the Highway Design Engineer based on the site conditions and standard design practice for construction of additional bridge of Kurumaly. The Officer held that the PWD land on the eastern side (in a small length) is not suitable for the standard design of the alignment. The request of the petitioner to exempt the land on the western side was held to be not feasible due to the aforesaid technical reason. The National Highway Authority of India had made good effort to straighten the road and there is no reason to interfere with the matter, held the Land Acquisition Officer. He further stated that the alignment of the road is seen made by Highway Design Engineers for the National Highway Authority of India, taking into consideration the entire stretch and change of alignment as requested by the petitioner at the location is not reasonable. WP(C)31998/2007 -: 4 :- 5.In this writ petition filed on 26.10.2007, there is no interlocutory order interdicting the acquisition or the work of the road. I notice this in the context of the submission on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India that the work in terms of the alignment, in the stretch in question, is fast progressing to completion and even if there is judicial intervention, that would only affect the larger public purpose and the public interest in the widening of the road which has already reached its last lap of completion. 6.A commission was issued by this Court at the request of the petitioner. The Commissioner's report to which the parties have placed objections, was prepared with the assistance of survey officials and a retired Chief Engineer. The conclusions in that report did not generate any reliable material and the report is filed by stating that the sketches verified by the Commissioner with the assistance of the retired WP(C)31998/2007 -: 5 :- Chief Engineer, are insufficient to conclude either way and that the expert, namely, the retired Chief Engineer, has opined that the assessment of the alignment with reference to the two sketches placed before the Commissioner could be verified only by extensive surveying with the aid of sophisticated satellite linked precision instruments, which require more technical expertise and involvement of high end instruments. It is stated that though the National Highway Authorities produced the original alignment sketch, the Commissioner and the expert could not make out how the alignment of the proposed widening would be implemented on the properties in question. As the petitioner disputed Annexure-III and Annexure-IV sketches prepared by the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) before the Commissioner, the report concludes by stating that the Commissioner and the expert are of the opinion that a fresh re-survey has to be conducted on the basis of the original alignment sketch to determine whether the measurements contained in WP(C)31998/2007 -: 6 :- Annexure-III and Annexure-IV sketches are correct or not. 7.With the aforesaid materials, the grounds of challenge to the impugned decision, as set forth in this writ petition, would show that fundamentally, the plea is regarding the alignment of the road. The allegation that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the objections of the petitioner objectively and after visiting the site in question does not commend acceptance. This is because, the fixation of the alignment for the National Highway is a technical matter and in the case in hand, as contended by the National Authority Authority of India, the proposal of the project is for widening of an existing Highway which may include even widening of bridges or construction of parallel bridges. Whether in the given set of circumstances and facts, the alignment would result in complete stretching up of a curve or would make the mobility of vehicles easier are matters best left WP(C)31998/2007 -: 7 :- to the wisdom of the technical experts who prepare the alignment. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that the alignment has been made, not on the ipse dixit of any single officer. It has been essentially made with the technical expertise of different personnel and with the aid of sophisticated technology, aimed at the end result of a progressive highway facility. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that the alignment could have been otherwise or that there is a shift in the alignment does not, by itself, contain a circumstance warranting interference with the acquisition in question. To crown all these is the fact that as of now, in 2009 July, the fact remains that the major portion of the alignment is already set and it would not be in the public interest to go against it, by the writ court interfering with the acquisition made in connection with the widening of the road. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned decision. WP(C)31998/2007 -: 8 :- The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/270709