The court ruled that the 15-day objection period in land acquisition rules is invalid, emphasizing adherence to statutory procedures and the need for a comprehensive Social Impact Assessment.

JUDGMENT :

WP(C)No.2945 of 2022

The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers;

(i) To declare that Rule 18(1) RCTLARR (Kerala) Rules, 2015 limiting the time period for filing objection to 15 days as against 60 days as stipulated under Section 15 of the Fair Compensation Act is ultra vires to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(ii) To declare that the Form Nos. 7 and 7A issued by the 1st Respondent under Rule 18(1) of the RCTLARR (Kerala) Rules, 2015 limiting the time period for filing objection to 15 days as against 60 days as stipulated under Section 15 of the Fair Compensation Act, is ultra vires to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P14 series orders passed by the 4th Respondent; and

(iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P5 Report submitted under Section 4 of the Fair Compensation Act; and

(v) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P6 submitted under Section 7 of the Fair Compensation Act; and

(vi) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit-P7 Government Order issued by the 1st Respondent under Section 8 of the Fair Compensation Act; and

(vii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P9 Notification issued by the r respondent issued under Section 11 of the Fair Compensation Act; and

(viii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents 1 to 5 to consider Exhibit P3 proposal submitted by the Petitioners and others in the locality and make consequential modifications; and Grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; and

(ix) To allow the Writ Petition (Civil) with costs to the Petitioners.

2. The petitioners' case is as follows;

3. The petitioners owned properties, buildings and businesses at Puthiyatheru, about 4 Kilometres from Kannur town, abutting the Old NH 66 between Manna Junction and National Highway By-pass Junction. The grievance that is projected is that the 4th respondent rejected the objections raised by the petitioners under Section 15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'LARR Act'), challenging the Social Impact Assessment Study and the consequential proceedings. The petitioners have stated the details of the properties owned by them. Such details may not be very relevant for determining the issues involved, and hence, they are not being extracted. All that needs to be said is that the facts relating to the ownership of the properties and the constructions and businesses that are being carried on are not seriously disputed by the respondents. According to the petitioners, the existing width of the road at Puthiyatheru is 10 to 13 Metres. It is stated that there are 500 employees working in the commercial establishments at Puthiyatheru Junction, and the livelihood of more than 3500 persons depends on the businesses that are being conducted in the locality. It is further stated that as part of the widening of the Highway, a bypass road has been constructed deviating the National Highway 66 from the original NH-66, and after the said deviation, except persons who need to reach Kannur town, all other vehicles towards Mangalore (towards North) and Kozhikode (towards south) use the above by-pass and the traffic in the existing road is stated to have reduced by more than 25%. It is also stated that another bypass road is proposed from Puthiyatheru (Kottali Road Junction) to Kannothchal J