IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30070 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONERS --------------- 1. NATTIKA-KOTHAKULAM BYPASS ACTION COUNCIL GAURI SANKER SHOPPING COMPLEX, TRIPRAYAR JUNCTION P.O. NATTIKA, THRISSUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY P.K. RAJAGOPAL , JOINT CONVENOR, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, PANIKETTY HOUSE, P.O., NATTIKA, THRISSUR. 2. T.M. SANKARANARAYANAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O MAMU EYYANI THOTTUNGAL HOUSE P.O. NATTIKA THRISSUR, NATTIKA KOTHAKULAM BYPASS ACTION, COUNCIL GAURI SANKER SHOPPING COMPLEX, TRIPRAYAR JUNCTION, P.O. NATTIKA, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110001. 2. PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NO.337,CHANDRA NAGAR EXTENSION, NARIKODE, PALAKKAD. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST. SGI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 30070 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Nattika-Kothakulam Bypass Action Council, a voluntary association of people who are aggrieved by the proposed expansion of the existing national highway No. 17 at Nattika and its treasurer are the petitioners. They seek the following prayers: “a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent to consider the issues raised in Ext.P1 filed by the petitioner, call the petitioner for hearing and only then finalise the draft scheme for the purpose of expansion of the National Highway 17 at the Nattika-Kothakulam route. b. Declare that the respondents are bound to follow the dictum laid down by this Hon'ble court in 2008(2)KLT 580 George Joseph v. Union of India while finalizing the proposal for the alignment of the National Highway. c. Direct the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on WPC.No.30070/08 2 Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner. 2. Petitioners have submitted Ext.P1 statement of objections before the second respondent Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India who is implementing the proposed project. Strong reliance was placed by Sri.Rajith, learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of Sri.K.Padmanabhan Nair, J. in George Joseph v. Union of India ( 2008(2)KLT 580) and the learned counsel would argue that since in this case the second respondent has undertaken a development activity like transportation project affecting innumerable people, it is necessary that the members of the first petitioner council who will be affected by the proposed acquisition of their properties are given an opportunity to raise their objections or suggestions even before the initial notification is issued. 3. Sri.Basant Balaji, learned Government Pleader would draw a distinction between the cases of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and acquisition under the National Highways Act. He would submit that section 3(c) of the National Highways Act provide an opportunity to all persons claiming to be interested in the proposed WPC.No.30070/08 3 acquisition to raise their objections to the proposed acquisition. It is therefore open to the petitioners after the initial notification under section 3 A is issued to file their objections under Section 3(c) irrespective of whether they are getting independent notice from the SLAO to be appointed. Learned counsel would submit that George Joseph's case was a case where acquisition was proposed under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and not under the National Highways Act. Having considered the submissions, I am of the view that it is too early for the petitioners to approach this court especially since even of their showing the proposed acquisition is under the National Highways Act and not under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Under the above circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioners and all members of the first petitioner council to file their objections under Section 3(c) of the National Highways Act before the SLAO to be appointed for carrying out the acquisition within the statutory period of 21 days of promulgation of notification under section 3A. Once such objections are filed, the SLAO concerned will hear the petitioners on all the contentions raised by them and take a decision. It is made WPC.No.30070/08 4 clear that the merits of the grounds raised in this writ petition have not been examined or decided in this judgment. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.30070/08 5