A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

1. The proposal for acquisition of properties for a new road at the instance of Inland Waterways Authority of India (the 4th respondent), is under challenge in these writ petitions.

2. The petitioners own different properties in different survey numbers of Maradu Village. The petitioners allege that the 4th respondent is having the Inland Water Transport Terminal in NW-3 at Kannadikadu, which has an approach road having a width of 12 meters from the main gate connecting it to the NH-47 bypass road through the existing NH-47 service road. They would allege that during 1990, the land acquired for widening the existing approach road and the compensation for acquisition was paid off and the land was taken possession of almost two decades ago though the same was not utilized till now for widening the existing approach road. Their grievance is that now the 3rd respondent, on 13.3.2013, issued a notification under Section 6 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act (for short, the Act) proposing survey of land for the formation of another 12 meter wide approach road from the very same terminal to connect it to the same NH-47 bypass road for providing mobility for heavy vehicles. The petitioners allege that the newly proposed road is through private property requiring an extent of 3836.53 sq. mtrs. of land to be acquired from private persons. The petitioners would point out that if the existing approach road is widened to the required width and bell mouths are provided at junctions, the land requirement would be less than 1/10th of the land required under the newly proposed acquisition and the same would save public money. The notification under Section 6 is challenged by the petitioners on the ground that it was not preceded by a notice under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the acquisition proposed has to be stopped at the threshold to protect public money. It is with this background, the petitioners have come up before this Court.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the State, they would contend that the 2nd respondent was directed to issue Section 6(1) notification under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act. After conducting a joint site inspection, the same was published in two dailies on 14.3.2013 and 15.3.2013 and also in the Kerala Gazette dated 16.4.2013 for acquisition of 38.37 Ares of land in Sy Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Maradu Village. The properties were identified and boundary stones were planted. According to them, the notification was strictly in accordance with law. It was further contended that the 2nd respondent is the competent officer to issue notification under Section 6(1).

4. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. They would contend that the width of the road proposed for acquisition for development of approach road, is only 10 meters. According to them, it was considered keeping in view the turning radius at Nair's Hospital Jn. as well as the non-turning point, where the land width is more than 10 meters, for a smooth and safe mobility of container transport. According to them, on receipt of the final intimation, the 3rd respondent initiated action for acquisition of land. They would contend that under Section 4, what is mandatorily contemplated is to order survey of land or of boundary of any land or of the boundary forming the common limit of any government land and any registered land. The notification contemplated under Section 4 has to be published as per Section 6 of the Act. According to them, it is not mandatory that notification should be published under Section 4. Therefore, the 4th respondent prayed for a dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent.

6. Admittedly, Ext.P1 notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act. The learned senior counsel appe