Authorities must comply with binding judicial directives to consider landowner's alternate proposals in SIA under RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2026 The challenge in this writ petition is as against Ext.P9, report of the Social Impact Assessment Team in terms of Section 4 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the 2013 Act). In fact, as per the reliefs originally sought for in the writ petition, a finding of the Assistant Engineer, PWD - if it can be called a finding - was sought to be quashed. Subsequently, the Writ Petition was amended, seeking quashment of Ext.P9 S.I.A report, Ext.P10 report of the Expert Group, and also, Ext.P11 decision of the appropriate Government. The amendment sought for has been allowed and hence the reliefs are liable to be considered.

2. The compass of controversy in this writ petition centers around an alternate proposal made by the petitioner pertaining to acquisition of land for widening the bell-mouth of the Mitchal Junction in the Mavelikkara - Thiruvalla road.

3. Heard Smt.Sumathi Dandapani, learned Senior Counsel, duly instructed by Sri.Millu Dandapani, on behalf of the petitioner; and Sri.Ajith Viswanathan, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents. The submissions of the respective parties will be considered while discussing the issues.

4. The first document to be taken note of is Ext.P3, which is a judgment by this Court based on a challenge made by as many as eleven petitioners, of whom the present petitioner is the third. As per Ext.P3, vide paragraph no.5 therein, it was noted that the Social Impact Assessment Study was unacceptable to the Government, and a fresh assessment is being initiated. In such circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court directed the competent Authority to hear the petitioners also, while the new Social Impact Assessment Study is conducted. It was directed that the objection of the petitioners against a sketch, produced as Ext.P1 in that writ petition, has to be taken into account and suitable modifications to be made to the sketch, in case the petitioners’ contentions/objections are found to be tenable. Again, the petitioner filed another Writ Petition challenging the alignment sketch, the S.I.A study report and the report of the expert group, which culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. The specific ground of challenge is the non-consideration of the petitioner’s objection to the alignment. The contention was accepted. The S.I.A report and all proceedings pursuant thereto were set aside. Fresh proceedings were directed to be restarted from the stage ofSection 4(1) of the 2013 Act. It was further directed that the Social Impact Assessment Study has to be conducted by a specialized and reputed agency. Against Ext.P5, the petitioner carried a challenge before the Division Bench, which resulted in Ext.P6 judgment. In Ext.P6, the Division Bench specifically directed that an alternative proposal shall be submitted by the appellant (the petitioner herein), and the same shall be considered, before passing the final award. The Division Bench took pains to clarify that without considering the objection, no final award shall be passed. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred Ext.P7 objection, specifically pointing out the existence of a canal, by name ‘Kottathodu canal’, situated on the opposite side of the petitioner’s building, at Mitchal Junction. The availability of certain Government land, just opposite to the petitioner’s building, was also pointed out, which Government land runs adjacent to the canal above referred. It was the specific contention taken by the petitioner in Ext.P7 that, if the said canal is cove