IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Puthiyapurayil Govindhan, S/o. Narayanan and Ors - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented By The Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi and Ors - Respondent
WA.No.2244 of 2019
Decided On : 20-11-2019
National Highways Act, 1956- Section 9- The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the National Highways Act, 1956, the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 have been framed. As per Section 2(c) of the above said Rules, the word 'Bypass” means a section of National highway bypassing a town or city. As per Section 2(e) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, the word “Highway” means a National Highway declared as such under Section 2 of the National Highways Act, 1956.
Statement of facts:
National Highway No.17 (present No.66) bypass alignment proposed for the stretch extending from Velapuram to Kallulkettichira violates the guidelines for quality systems for road construction. The new alignment proposed is less cost effective. Petitioners have further contended that no detailed investigation was conducted before alignment was revised. According to the petitioners, factors such as manual for survey, investigation and preparation of road projects etc., were not considered. Petitioners have further contended that location of widening of National Highway ought to have resulted in minimum interference to agricultural industry. Location should, as far as possible, facilitate easy grades and curvature. Highway should, as far as possible, be located along edges of properties rather than through the middle of the properties to avoid needs of frequent crossing of highway by the local people.
Finding of the court:
The Court can nullity the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex -facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.
Result: Writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. Instant appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C) No.38782 of 2018 dated 29.03.2019 by which, the writ court declined to issue a writ of certiorari to quash Exhibit-P1, notification dated 8.11.2017 published in the daily newspaper Malayala Manorama dated 22.11.2017, Exhibit-P3 series, proceedings of the Special Deputy Collector & Competent Authority, Land Acquisition (NH), Kannur, issued by the Special Deputy Collector, LA (NHAI), Kannur at Taliparamba & Competent Authority, respondent No.6, Exhibit-P6, notification dated 25.07.2018, and Exhibit-P7, notification dated 9.8.2018 respectively, and further declined to issue a direction to approve Exhibit-P10, copy of DPR/Google Map-Sketch of proposed alignment and alternative proposal alignment and comparison particulars.
2. Facts germane for the disposal of this appeal are that, the petitioners are residents of Chirakkal Amsom, Puzhathi Desom in Kannur district. Earlier, National Highway Authorities proposed widening of a road through the existing National Highway. Later, the proposed alignment was changed, which passes through the properties of the petitioners. According to them, National Highway No.17 (present No.66) bypass alignment proposed for the stretch extending from Velapuram to Kallulkettichira violates the guidelines for quality systems for road construction. The new alignment proposed is less cost effective. Petitioners have further contended that no detailed investigation was conducted before alignment was revised. According to the petitioners, factors such as manual for survey, investigation and preparation of road projects etc., were not considered. Petitioners have further contended that location of widening of National Highway ought to have resulted in minimum interference to agricultural industry. Location should, as far as possible, facilitate easy grades and curvature. Highway should, as far as possible, be located along edges of properties rather than through the middle of the properties to avoid needs of frequent crossing of highway by the local people.
3. Petitioners have further contended that due to the influence of important persons, re-alignment has been made without public notice, and this has been done for corruption and without following the principles of natural justice. Petitioners also contended that according to the respondents, the said properties are sought to be acquired for building (Widening/four-laning, etc.), maintenance, management and operation of National Highway No.17, on the stretch of land from kms 148.000 to kms 171.200 (Kannur-Vengalam Section) in Kannur District. The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a notification dated 8-11-2017 issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956). The same has been published in Malayala Manorama daily news paper dated 22-11-2017. As per the above notification, persons interested in the said lands mentioned thereupon were called to file objection before the competent Authority, viz. "Special Thahasildar (LA) NH-1I, Kannur" within 21 days from, the date of Publication of the notification in the official Gazette Under section 3C, of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioners filed their objections in time before the competent Authority on 29-11-2017. Thereafter, the 6th respondent passed an order on 23-5-2018 which was received by the petitioners on 16-06-18 by post.
4. Petitioners have further contended that Exhibit-P1 was followed by Exhibit-P6 notification dated 25-7-2018 issued under Section 3D of the Act. Thereafter, the respondents issued Exhibit-P7 notification under Section 3G on 9-8-2018 which has been published in Mathrubhumi and Malayala Manorama daily on 31-08-2018. Thereafter, the 8th respondent issued notice to 36 persons on 5-1-2018 asking them to produce the documents, tax receipt, and to appear for hearing under Section 3C
Union of India (UOI) v. Dr.Kushala Shetty and Others reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.