Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.
Venugopalan P.V. S/o Govindan Nair – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary – Respondent
W.P. (C) Nos. 35389 of 2019, 26775 of 2020
Decided On : 09-04-2021
National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3 – Mandamus – Certiorari – Notification – Under challenge in these writ petitions are the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the subsequent proceedings, which include the fixing of the alignment of the Koyilandy Bypass from Nandi to Chengottukadavu from km 214 to km 225 as part of four laning of NH-66 from Thalappady km 17 to Vengalam km 230 in the State of Kerala. – Instant writ petitions were filed seeking reliefs to issue a writ of certiorari calling for records relating to Exhibit P12, Exhibit P14, Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P17 notifications and quash the portion of notification in respect of Quilandi Bypass Road, from Nandi to Chenkkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 as illegal – To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to acquire the land for the 4-laning of NH -17 (New NH-66) in Kerala State equally from both sides from the central line of the existing National Highway instead of Quilandi Bypass Road – To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to acquire the petitioners’ land for the 4-laning of NH-17 (New NH-66), from Nandi to Chenkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 without conducting the Environment and Social Impact Assessment and a comparative cost benefit analysis –
Finding of the Court:
, Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out any grounds for interference – Words used are “any action or proceeding” and a wide interpretation is to be given – If by the orders issued by the Court, the NHAI is interdicted from initiating any action or proceeding, the proviso will be attracted and the said period will have to be excluded. In the case on hand, Ext.P12 notification under Section 3A was issued on 08.11.2017. – Court by Ext.P20 order had ordered that further coercive steps shall not be taken by the respondents on the strength of the modified alignment. – This, in my opinion, will amount to an interdiction on the NHAI to proceed further with any action or proceeding that they are bound to initiate in pursuance of the notification. – It was only on 19.09.2018 that the said order was modified by directing that further steps of dispossessing the petitioners from the properties in question or taking possession of the properties shall be done only after complying with all due procedure in terms of the National Highways Act. – Proviso to Section 3D(3) says that in computing the period of one year, the period or periods during which any action or proceedings to be taken in pursuance of notification issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 3A is stayed by an order of a court shall be excluded. – Court is not impressed with the contention advanced by Smt. Daisy A. Philipose that the entire proceedings have not been stayed and hence the benefit of the proviso cannot be extended to the respondents. – Court hold that the declaration was well within time if the period of stay was excluded and the contentions forcefully advanced by the learned counsel should fail. –
Result: Writ Petitions Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Under challenge in these writ petitions are the notifications issued under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“the Act” for short) and the subsequent proceedings, which include the fixing of the alignment of the Koyilandy Bypass from Nandi to Chengottukadavu from km 214 to km 225 as part of four laning of NH-66 from Thalappady km 17 to Vengalam km 230 in the State of Kerala.
2. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and Exhibits in W.P. (C) No. 35389 of 2019 shall be referred to.
3. The Central Government by Ext.P12 notification dated 08.11.2017 issued under Section 3A of the Act declared its intention to acquire land for the purpose of widening of NH-17 stretch starting from km 185.980 to km 260.200 in Kozhikode district. The substance of notification was published in two local newspapers as contemplated under the Act. The land under acquisition was surveyed and marked under Section 3B and the objectors were heard. Later, Ext.P14 declaration was issued under Section 3D of the Act on 27.12.2018, consequent to which the land vested in the Central Government. Thereafter Ext.P16 additional notification was issued under Section 3A of the Act on 08.03.2019 for clearly and exactly identifying the properties covered under the original notification. Ext.P16 however, did not involve any land which was not covered under Exhibit P12. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P17 public notice was issued under Section 3G(3) inviting claims from persons interested in the land to be acquired. Immediately thereafter the instant writ petitions were filed seeking the following reliefs:
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to acquire the land for the 4-laning of NH -17 (New NH-66) in Kerala State equally from both sides from the central line of the existing National Highway instead of Quilandi Bypass Road.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent not to acquire the petitioners’ land for the 4-laning of NH-17 (New NH-66), from Nandi to Chenkottukavu from km 214 to Km 225 without conducting the Environment and Social Impact Assessment and a comparative cost benefit analysis.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Government, as early as in the year 1972, had acquired land for widening the existing highway to 30 metres. While carrying out the acquisition as aforesaid, the local authority had insisted upon the owners of shops on either side of the highway that they can continue to occupy their buildings only on condition that they shall voluntarily vacate as and when the highway is required to be widened. In view of the above, the shop owners were not permitted to put up any new construction on the sides of the existing highway. On two earlier occasions, 3A notification was issued on 2.12.2009 and 8.2.2011, but the same lapsed due to various reasons. In the year 2011, in view of the serious objection by the Action Committee formed against the formation of the bypass, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board intervened in the matter and the objections were forwarded to the National Highway Authorities. Later, based on complaints filed by the local residents, the Petitions Committee of the Kerala Legislative Assembly had conducted a local enquiry and they had submitted Ext.P7 report on 23.07.2012 wherein it is stated that no proper study was conducted regarding the social as well as environmental impact of the project. The alignment of the bypass was fixed without taking note of the fact that about 532 buildings would have to be demolished. As a matter of fact, if the width of the existing highway is increased to 45 metres only about 215 buildings and 22 houses need to be demolished. The petitioners would contend that as pe
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
