Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
Salini V.S., W/o.Late T.G Jayaprakasan – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WP(C) No.14782 of 2021
Decided on : 13-10-2021
Land Acquisition - Acquisition for developmental purposes - Alternate perspective- whether the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act is competent to alter the alignment of the Highway proposed by the Government, consequent to the publication of the final declaration under Section 3 D of the NH Act.
Finding of the Court: Section 3-A of the NH Act provides that when the Central Government is satisfied that it is for a public purpose that any land is required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land, giving a brief description in the notification itself. The Section further provides that this notification shall be published in two local newspapers, one of which shall be in the vernacular language. Once the said notification is issued, any person interested in the land obtains the statutory right to make his objections within 21 days of its publication, as regards use of the land for the purpose or purposes mentioned in that Section. This is specifically stipulated so in Section 3-C of the NH Act-even when the CALA makes a report to the Government as per their duty under Section 3-D of the NH Act, they does not and cannot recommend a change of the alignment, but only that certain lands or extents be excluded, they being not required for the purposes under Section 3-A of the NH Act-Road/Highway alignment design process is guided by comprehensive technical literature and data search; as also by various carefully identified priorities, including environmental and social dimensions, leading to multifarious decisions at multiple levels. This is a complex and intensively iterative process and the degrees of complexity increase depending upon the topographical and geological attributes. To say differently, this is a matter for the experts and not for the CALA, who is generally and often only a Revenue Official and not one with technical training or expertise in such matters.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Often than not, compulsory land acquisition leave a trail of throes, pangs and agony to many land owners.
2. This is why, as commonly seen in Courts: come Land Acquisition, comes litigation.
3. Acquisition for developmental purposes has been, historically, a contentious issue, not only in India, but all over the world.
4. Many threads of resistance run through such conflicts and justifiably so because land is not merely an important economic resource, but is sometimes central to individual and family identity, sentimental attachments, history and even culture.
5. Unsurprisingly, owners of land impel variegated reasons against acquisition and when it comes to development and creation of roads and Highways, amongst the most common of it all –at least from the experience of litigations – is that the alignment is unscientific, mala fide or without considering more feasible alternatives.
6. Posed in this writ petition, in the afore context is whether the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA), appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act ('NH Act', for short), is competent to alter the alignment of the Highway proposed by the Government, consequent to the publication of the final declaration under Section 3 D of the NH Act.
7. The petitioners are persons whose properties are affected by the acquisition of lands for the National Highway 66 and they say that they have raised objections against its alignment before the CALA -including by offering an alternate perspective -so that their properties can be saved to the extent possible, pointing out several infirmities in the process leading to the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act.
8. The petitioners say that, however, none of their objections were addressed appositely by the CALA and that Government of India has gone ahead and issued the notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act; which has thus constrained them to approach this Court, assailing Exts.P16 to P18(a) and Exts.P28 and P32 proceedings of the CALA, which has rejected their objections and suggestions.
9. I have heard Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Vineetha Susan Thomas, appearing for the petitioners; Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondent No.1 – Union ofIndia; Shri.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Sudhinkumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 – the Project Director of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) and Smt.Resmi Thomas, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.3.
10. Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, learned Senior Counsel, opened his submissions vehemently arguing that, on the intervention of the 3rd respondent -CALA, the alignment had been altered several times in the past; but that when it came to the objections of his clients, said Authority refused to accede to it, thus causing the Government of India to issue a statutory notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. He pointed out several instances from the plethora of documents on record to impress upon me that suggestions were made by the CALA with respect to the alteration of the alignment earlier proposed and that Government of India had acted upon them, thus leading to the present notification under Section 3-D of the NH Act. He predicated that, therefore, the CALA is still competent to change the alignment of the proposed Highway, particularly if there are vitiating factors -as have been pointed out by the petitioners, involved in the publication of the Section 3-D notification. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed and his clients' objections be directed to be properly reconsidered by the CALA; and to consequently order the Government to modify the Section 3-D notification appropriately.
11. Dr.K.P.Satheesan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the NHAI, countered the afore submissions of Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, saying that, as is apodictic from
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
