Kerala High Court Slams State's "Diametrically Opposite" Stands on NH-85 Forest Land

KOCHI – The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) delivered a sharp rebuke to the State Government for its inconsistent and contradictory submissions regarding the legal status of land earmarked for the widening of National Highway 85. In a case that pits critical infrastructure development against historical forest conservation laws, a Division Bench has directed the state's Chief Secretary to definitively clarify whether the disputed land along the Neriamangalam–Valara stretch is, in fact, part of a reserved forest.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, was hearing a review petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The NHAI sought to modify a previous interim order which, based on initial evidence, had declared the land as prima facie part of a reserved forest, effectively halting all construction work on a vital 13-kilometre segment of the Kochi–Madurai economic corridor.

---

The Core of the Dispute: A Century-Old Legal Conundrum

The legal battle hinges on the interpretation of historical land records dating back to the princely state of Travancore. The original writ petitioner argued that the land flanking the highway is an integral part of the Malayattoor–Idiyara Reserve Forest, officially designated under a Travancore notification in 1895. According to this argument, no subsequent, legally valid de-reservation or deforestation process has ever been completed, meaning the land retains its protected forest status.

Conversely, the NHAI, represented by counsel B G Bidan Chandran, presented a Travancore Government Notification from August 2, 1938. They contended that this notification, issued under Section 20 of the Travancore Forest Regulation II of 1068, effectively de-forested the land for the purpose of a public highway, which has been in existence since the 1930s. The NHAI emphasized that the High Court's earlier interim order, predicated on the land being a reserved forest, has caused significant delays and brought the crucial infrastructure project to a standstill.

State Government's Inconsistent Stance Draws Judicial Ire

The High Court's primary cause for disapproval was not the complexity of the historical claims but the State Government's baffling and contradictory handling of the matter. The Bench noted with dismay that the State had filed two affidavits that took "diametrically opposite stands."

In March 2025, the Additional Chief Secretary submitted a sworn affidavit unequivocally stating that the area in question remained a reserved forest and that the government had found no record of a de-reservation notification. This position supported the petitioner's claim and the Court's initial interim order.

However, in a surprising reversal, the Chief Secretary filed a new affidavit in September 2025. This subsequent submission claimed that the land had indeed been de-reserved by the 1938 notification and that the State's earlier stance, affirmed under oath by a senior official, was incorrect. This dramatic shift in the official government position, without a clear, reasoned explanation for the change, drew strong criticism from the Bench.

The Court expressed its censure in no uncertain terms, highlighting the government's lack of diligence:

“The Writ Petitioner has produced maps with geo-markings to reconcile the earlier records. No such effort is taken by the State Government for producing the maps to demarcate the area. The location of the land will have to be authoritatively determined with reference to the maps and records and not through affidavits or oral arguments.”

The Bench further underscored the gravity of the matter, which involves both ecological sensitivity and public interest, stating:

“It is not in dispute that the area in question is a hilly area with thick vegetation and there is an ecological angle to the subject matter. The expansion of the highway is also in public interest. In these circumstances, the issue ought to have been looked into by the State Government with some seriousness.”

---

A Directive for Clarity: Chief Secretary to Pass a Reasoned Order

While acknowledging the competing interests, the Court refrained from making a final declaration on the land's status. Instead, it placed the onus squarely on the executive branch to resolve its internal contradictions and provide a definitive, evidence-based conclusion.

The Bench issued a series of interim directions aimed at breaking the deadlock:

1. Reasoned Order on Land Status: The Chief Secretary is directed to pass a comprehensive and reasoned order clarifying the legal status of the land after meticulously reconciling all historical records, notifications, and maps. This order will form the basis for future actions.
   
   
2. Submission of Plans: The NHAI must furnish the Chief Secretary with detailed plans for the proposed widening of the Neriamangalam-Valara stretch.
   
   
3. Contingent Demarcation: If the Chief Secretary's order concludes that the area is not forest land, a joint demarcation exercise must be conducted by the Revenue and Forest Departments. This team will identify the specific trees and areas to be affected by the project.
   
   
4. Environmental and Safety Measures: The Chief Secretary is also tasked with issuing specific directions regarding landslide safety measures, ecological protection, and other environmental concerns associated with the highway expansion in the hilly terrain.
   
   
5. Compliance by NHAI: The NHAI Project Director is strictly instructed to ensure that no construction work is carried out beyond the scope of the government's eventual order.

The Court carefully clarified that this interim relief is strictly limited to the disputed land required for road widening and should not be interpreted as a blanket declaration that the entire area covered by the 1938 notification is now non-forest land.

The case, titled The Project Director & Others v M N Jayachandran & Others (RP 972/ 2025 in WP(C) 30391/ 2024), is scheduled for the hearing board starting December 1, where the Chief Secretary's compliance and reasoned order will likely be scrutinized. This case serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's role in ensuring administrative accountability and the necessity for the State to present a coherent and unified front when its actions are under judicial review, especially in matters involving significant environmental and public interest.