The necessity for construction of safety measures overrides contractor objections when significant danger to property exists.

JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

The present intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the judgment dated 09.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No.18237/2025 whereby the Writ Petition filed by the 1^st respondent has been allowed. The 1^st respondent herein had prayed for the following reliefs in the Writ Petition.

“1. An appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to 2™ and 3™ respondents to construct a retention wall to provide lateral support to protect the petitioner’s property on the side of the road.

2. An appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued to the 3^rd respondent to complete the work within a time limit.

3 Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including costs of this petition.”

2. The appellants 2 & 3 herein are directed to construct the retention wall or take any other protective measure to provide lateral support to the Respondent’s property on the side of the high way.

F acts:-

3. The brief facts of the case are that the Government had sanctioned road widening work of Muvattupuzha-Punalur Highway. The 3^rd appellant was developing the road between Plachery and Ponkunnam. The first respondent’s house is on the side of the road. The appellants have acquired considerable portion of the respondent’s land. The appellants have cut the soil vertically down at a depth of 12 feet and at a length of more than 70 metres. Therefore, first respondent’s house has lost lateral support due to the work. However, since there is a potential high danger to the property of the first respondent and building situated in the property is likely to tumble down during this monsoon. The appellants cannot be excused from not constructing the protective wall on the pretext that the house is located 6.3m away from the road boundary and there is a hard rock/hard laterite existing in that area.

A ppellants Contention:-

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that though the work of the protection wall on the first respondent property was included in the PAP action plan, the EPC Contractor has not taken up the work citing that the rates approved is not conducive for them. After conducting the survey, the appellants came to the conclusion that because of the house situated 6.3 m away from the road boundary, the road itself may not face any potential threat and therefore, no boundary wall is required to be constructed. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate all these aspects before allowing the Writ Petition. In view of the aforesaid, the order deserves to be set aside and the present Writ Appeals deserves to b allowed.

Respondents’ Contentions:-

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that there is a great potential danger of the house being collapsed during any monsoon. The survey was conducted by M/S. L&T around 2001 and it was found that the construction of the boundary wall is inevitable. The appellants have taken a somersault only because the Contractor concerned have not taken up the works stating that he may incur loss if the said boundary wall is constructed. This cannot be a ground not to construct the boundary wall. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the respondents herein are in great distress and now the house is situated in a precarious position and the potential danger cannot be ignored. The all of a sudden change in plan only with the view that the appellants or the Contractor may suffer loss, the plans cannot be changed. The protection wall is to be constructed by way of safety measure and for no other purpose, the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed. D iscussion and Anal