The proper authority must evaluate land acquisition proposals, including alignment and width considerations, as petitioners' objections require competent jurisdiction.

J U D G M E N T

The 1st petitioner is a society and the other petitioners are residents of Pappanamcodu, Thiruvananthapuram. They have filed this writ petition aggrieved by the proposal to acquire land for widening of the National Highway from Karamana bridge to Pappanamcodu. The grievance of the petitioners is that up to the Karamana bridge from the Western side, the road has been widened only up to a width of 22 metres. However, on the eastern side of the Karamana bridge up to Pappanamcodu the proposal is to widen the National Highway 17 up to a width of 30.2 metres. According to the petitioners, the extra width to which the widening proposal is now being implemented, would serve no purpose for the reason that the road up to the said point has only a width of 22 meters. They have a further contention that widening of the present road is not at all required for the reason that a bypass road is in the process of completion, which provides an alternative means of access to the traffic coming from the other parts of Kerala right up to the border of the State of Tamil Nadu. It is further contended that the present proposal for widening would cast a huge financial burden on the public exchequer for the reason that the acquisition is proposed to be made from the northern side of the road, where there are high rise buildings and other constructions, all of which would be lost in the acquisition. On the contrary, if land from the southern side is acquired, a major portion of the acquisition would be confined to Government land. For the above reasons, according to the petitioners the present acquisition is liable to be interdicted by the issue of appropriate orders from this court. Though they have submitted Ext.P8 representation to the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Kerala, no orders have been passed thereon, till date. Therefore, the petitioners seek the issue of appropriate orders and directions for a suitable alteration of the present proposal.

2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that after the issue of Section 4 (1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act , the enquiry that is contemplated by Section 5A is in progress and as many as 652 applications were received. Out of those, 534 applications have been heard and the rest of the applications are in the process of being considered. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are free to raise all their objections during the proceedings of the said enquiry. All their objections would be duly considered before the project is implemented, it is submitted.

3. Adv. Thomas Abraham, who appears for the petitioners on the other hand points out that the authority that is conducting the enquiry under Section 5A is not competent to alter the alignment of the proposed road or to make any drastic changes in the proposal as suggested by the petitioners. Therefore, it is submitted that all the aspects would have to be considered by an authority competent to make such alterations, in the event of the said authority being satisfied of the viability of the proposal.

4. Having considered the rival contentions advanced before me, I am of the opinion that, the technical aspects regarding the alignment, the optimum width that is required for the road, the cost of acquisition, an assessment of the benefits that is likely to result from a change of the proposal that is now being implemented, would all have to be assessed, for which, this court is ill-equipped. The said exercise would have to be undertaken by the authority competent to conduct an evaluation of all such necessary inputs. Since Ext.P8 is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, it is sufficient that the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Kerala, is directed to consider Ext.P8 representation and to take a decision in the matter, in accordance with law.

5. This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1st respondent, the Secretary, Public Works Department, Governm