IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29223 of 2009(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE SAMASTHA KERALA SUNNI YUVAJANA SANGHAM,STATE COMMITTEE,REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT,MARKAZ COMPLEX,I.G.ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA SRI.NISHIL.P.S. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF SHIPPING,ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS,(DEPARTMENT OF ROAD TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS) NEW DELHI. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION,N.H.D.P.U.UNIT, TRICHUR-680 020. 3. THE TAHSILDAR & EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, TALUK OFFICE,ALUVA. ADDL. 4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD. (Addl.R4 is impleaded as per order dt.12.11.09 in I.A.13659/09) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R2 & R3 ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.29223 of 2009-W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner challenges a land acquisition proceedings. Award has been passed and amount has been deposited. 2.The petitioner states that the petitioner has a building at Athani Junction and that it is a Juma Masjid. No objection to the notification was taken earlier. The acquisition proceedings have become final. Award has been passed. The courts will not, therefore, interfere with the acquisition. 3.The aforesaid position notwithstanding, looking at the materials placed on record, including the counter affidavit of the fourth respondent sworn to by the Manager(Technical) and Project Director WPC29223/09 -: 2 :- of National Highway Authority of India along with Ext.R4(b) sketch, it can be seen that the parcel in question is well within the alignment for the development of the junction, including the road. Land is being acquired from both sides. Even if there is no acquisition from both sides of the road, the alignment was fixed by competent authorities and there is no reason for the court to interfere with the fixation of alignment which is essentially a technical matter. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/1612