The court upheld the acquisition of land for a National Highway under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, rejecting the petitioner's claim that the National Highways Act 1956 should apply.

In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner-M/s.Kaduna Properties (P)Ltd challenges Ext.P4 combined notification issued by the Government under section 4(1) and section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act invoking the emergency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of the properties mentioned therein including that of the petitioner directing that the enquiry under section 5A need not be conducted. The first respondent is Union of India in the Department of Shipping and Road Transport. Second respondent is the National Highway Authority of India. Third respondent is the State of Kerala. The District Collector, Ernakulam, Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer ICTT) Vallarpadam, The Project Director and the Cochin Port Trust were respectively impleaded as additional respondents 4 to 7. According to the petitioners their predecessor Narayanan and Babu owned two Acres of land in Mulavukadu village out of which 1.37 Acres of land were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of providing NH 47 connectivity to the International Container Transshipment Terminal at Vallarpadom on the basis of negotiation with the District Level Purchase Committee, the extent of 1.37 Ares of land were sold by Narayanan and Babu in favour of the National Highway Authority by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 16-8-2007 No. 6277/07 and Ext.P1(a) sale deed dated 22-8-2007 No.6425/07. The National Highway 47 connectivity to ICTT was finalised and flags were planted demarcating the Highways and Ext.P3 is the sketch showing the national highway connectivity in the said area. The petitioner purchased the balance extent of 63 cents of land in R.S.No. 12/4, 17/3 and 17/4 of Mulavukad village as per Ext.P2 sale deed dated 26-09-2007. It is alleged by the petitioners that Ext.P4 has now been issued for enabling a highly influential real estate developer to have road frontage to his property. It is contended that the land acquisition Act has no application since the acquisition is for highway and only the National Highway Act has application. Ext.P4 is challenged by the petitioner on various grounds including the following two main grounds:

1) The Land Acquisition Act 1894 has no application since the acquisition of land is for a National Highway and only National Highways Act 1956 applies.

2) The acquisition is made changing the alignment under the influence of land mafia in order that there will be road access to the properties of persons who have acquired lands without road frontage in the locality.

.2. Thefollowing are the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

.1) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P4. 2) Issue other appropriate writs.

.3. On behalf of the 7th respondent Cochin Port Trust, the Chief Engineer has filed a detailed counter affidavit. Inter alia, it is contended therein that Ext.P4 notification has been issued by the State of Kerala on the basis of the requisition made by the Port Trust to the District Collector as per Ext.R7(a) dated 17-10-2008 under Rule 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Kerala Rules 1990. In terms of Rule 5(2) of Land Acquisition Kerala Rules, the Collector recommended acquisition and the Government in pursuance of the District Collectors recommendations approved the request and accordingly Ext.P4 was issued. It is submitted that an extent of 1.3911 hectares of land is notified for acquisition from Mulavukadu village since the same is required to suit the alignment prior to obtaining EIA clearance and on the basis of that proposal, the land was acquired as per earlier notification under section 4(1) dated 9-9-2005 and 29-11-2005. Pursuant to those notifications proceedings were initiated for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act in respect of some properties while certain properties were purchased by National Highway Authority by direct purchase on mutually agreed terms. Exts.P1 and P1(a) produced by the petitioners are instances of such mutual agreement purchases. The