The appellate court must adhere to statutory provisions, and an injunction may be granted subject to due process requirements, even under the Control of National Highways Act.

JUDGMENT

This original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P1 judgment in C.M.A.No.14 of 2026 passed by the Additional District Judge-VII, Ernakulam. The petitioners are the Authorised Officer and Project Director of NHAI. They sought to take action against the respondents on the ground that the 1^st respondent was unauthorisedly occupying land which has been handed over to the NHAI for the formation of the National Highway. A notice is stated to have been issued on 22.01.2026, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. An endorsement is seen in Ext.P2 to the effect that it has been received by the 1^st respondent on 24.01.2026. The 1^st respondent had filed O.S.No.97 of 2026 on 22.01.2026 even before he received a notice, before the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. By Ext.P4 order in I.A.No.1 of 2026 the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, rejected the prayer for injunction, finding that the suit itself is barred in view of the provisions of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002 , particularly in view of sections 14, 15 and 26 of the Act. The trial court relied on the judgments of this Court and held that no prima facie case has been made out warranting an order of injunction. The 1^st respondent challenged Ext.P4 order in appeal and by Ext.P1 order, the appellate court has reversed the findings of the trial court and granted a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein, their men and agents from demolishing the building shown in the schedule of injunction application without following the due process of law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff till the disposal of the same. It is above order, which has been challenged.

2. The contention of the petitioners is that going by Section 41 of the Act, every order made or action taken by the Highway Administration/Authorised Officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application or execution proceedings and that no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. It is submitted that the First Appellate Court ought not have granted an order of injunction in view of the specific prohibition under the statute. The statutory provisions are not disputed. However, the Appellate Court order clearly shows that the provisions which were relied on by the trial court were no longer in the statute. The court has noted that in the written statement, counter statement and in the argument notes, the contention of the petitioners is that Section 15 of the Act contains a bar of jurisdiction. The court took note of the fact that Section 14 which gives power to the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction, powers and authority in relation to matters specified in the said section, had been amended in 2021 and the amendment had not been brought to the notice of the Munsiff Court. As per the amendment, an appeal from any order passed or any action taken excluding issuance of serving of notice under Sections 26 , 27, 28, 36, 37 and 38 of the by the Highway Administration or any Officer authorised on his behalf shall lie to the court. The court is defined as the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction. Sections 15 and 16 which were relied on by the trial court were omitted by Act 33 of 2021. The court also noticed Section 41 and stated that it only gives finality to the orders which were passed in the earlier statute. The court further noticed that there is no provision of law which says that without giving notice to a person a building can be demolished. The reasoning of the Appellate Court cannot be faulted. Even while concluding, the Appellate Court has specifically stated that a temporary injunction is granted only against demolition of the building shown in the schedule of injunction ap