High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of; petition dismissed; ...
C.G. Tomy and Others v Union of India and Others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.11543 of 2019
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Muhammed Mustaque
- Judgment Date
- 2019-07-03
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition disposed of: no merit in challenging the 3A process or alignment change; the court directs that no land belonging to petitioners shall be acquired without publishing a Section 3A notification, and directs compensation to be determined under the 2013 Act with liberty to challenge competent-authority orders in proper proceedings.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition disposed of; petition dismissed; directions issued regarding 3A notification and compensation under the 2013 Act.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- C. G. Tomy
- Stella Mathew
- Marymol David
- T. S. Paul
- Ursala Antony
- Thomas John Muthoot
- Sree Devi Unni
- Amma Thirumpathu
- Vinodhini Varassiar TS
Respondents
- Union of India
- State of Kerala
- National Highway Authority of India
- Project Director, National Highway Authority of India
- Special Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Land Acquisition, NHAI
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sri P. A. Mohammed Shah
- • Smt. Mary Reshma George
- • Smt. V. A. Haritha
- • Sri R. Nandagopal
- • Sri Sidharth B Prasad
- • Sri Aswin Kumar M. J.
Counsels for Respondents
- • M/s. M. V. Kini and Co., SC, NHAI
- • Sri E. C. KuriaKose
- • Smt. Pooja Surendran, GP
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (WP(C) No.11543 of 2019) challenging land acquisition proceedings for widening National Highway 17 in the Paravur-Edappally stretch and an alleged alignment change between KM 413.800 and 429.400 in Ernakulam district. A Section 3A notification dated 29 November 2018 (Ext.P2) purportedly authorizes acquisition within the stretch formerly designated as NH66 (Old NH 17). The petitioners argue their lands were not included in the 3A notification and contend that acquisition cannot proceed without a valid 3A notification. They also challenge the proposed alignment change and allege non-disclosure and procedural lapses in the notice process. The respondents’ counsel maintains that objections under Section 3C, if raised within time, were not sufficiently substantial to warrant reconsideration by the competent authority; some petitioners did not raise timely objections. The court emphasizes that Section 3C objections are limited in scope to land use for the highway and that alignment changes fall within the NHAI’s exclusive purview, citing the Apex Court’s dictum in UOI v Kushala Shetty. Consequently, the petition is dismissed, with liberty to challenge competent-authority orders, and compensation is to be determined under the 2013 Act, with no land acquired without a 3A notification.
Provisions of Law Cited
Section 3A, National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act, 1956)Section 3C, National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act, 1956)National Highways Act, 1956Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Objections under Section 3C are limited in scope to use of land for national highways and to challenges that the land was not acquired for the purpose of forming the highway.
- Change of alignment is within the exclusive domain of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI).
- No land shall be acquired without publishing a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act.
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners contend that the widening of NH 17 and the proposed alignment between the specified kilometric points would encroach upon their lands. They assert that their properties were not included in the 3A notification dated 29.11.2018 and hence could not be subjected to acquisition without a valid 3A notification. They challenge the breadth of Section 3C objections and request quashing or staying any acquisition until a proper 3A notification is issued, with redetermination of compensation under the 2013 Act if land is acquired.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argue that objections under Section 3C, if any, were not substantial and did not compel reconsideration by the competent authority. They rely on Ext.P2 notification under Section 3A to cover the stretch and contend alignment changes fall within NHAI’s exclusive purview. They urge dismissal of the petition and permit the competent authority to determine compensation under the 2013 Act, while ensuring no land is acquired without 3A notification.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India (UOI) v. Kushala Shetty and Ors. | MANU/SC/0796/2011 | Positive | The judgment adopts the Apex Court’s dictum that 3C objections are limited in scope and that alignment changes are within the NHAI’s purview, guiding the current court’s reasoning. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against C.G. Tomy and Others v Union of India and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT**
**THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941**
## **WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
## **PETITIONERS:**
|**1**|**C.G.TOMY, AGED 53 YEARS,**|
|---|---|
||**S/O.GEORGE, CHANDHANAPARAMBIL HOUSE,**|
||**OLANAD, VARAPPUZHA P.O.,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.**|
|**2**|**STELLA MATHEW,**|
||**W/O.MATHEW, MANAYIL HOUSE,**|
||**VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-682 023.**|
|**3**|**MARYMOL DAVID,**|
||**PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,**|
||**VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-682 023.**|
|**4**|**T.S.PAUL,**|
||**THANNIKKAPARAMBIL,**|
||**THIRUMUPPAM,**|
||**VARAPPUZHA P.O.,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517.**|
|**5**|**URSALA ANTONY,**|
||**KURUPPATHU HOUSE, THIRUMUPPAM,**|
||**VARAPPUZHA P.O.,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517.**|
|**6**|**THOMAS JOHN MUTHOOT,**|
||**S/O.MATHEW M.THOMAS,**|
||**MUTHOOT FIN CORP LTD.,**|
||**MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNAN ROAD,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**|
|**7**|**SREEDEVI UNNI,**|
||**KARTHIKA, THIRUMUPPATHU VARIAM,**|
||**THIRUMUPPAM, VARAPPUZHA P.O.,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517.**|
|**8**|**AMMU THIRUMUPPATHU,**|
||**KARTHIKA, THIRUMUPPATHU VARIAM,**|
||**THIRUMUPPAM, VARAPPUZHA P.O.,**|
||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517.**|
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-2-**
**9 VINODHINI VARASSIAR T.S., PRABHATH, THIRUMUPPAM, OLANAD, VARAPPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 517.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL SRI.SIDHARTH B PRASAD SRI.ASWIN KUMAR M.J.**
## **RESPONDENTS:**
|**1**|**UNION OF INDIA,**|
|---|---|
||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,**|
||**MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,**|
||**NEW DELHI-110 001.**|
|**2**|**STATE OF KERALA,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,**|
||**PUBIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**|
||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**|
|**3**|**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**|
||**G-586, SECTOR-10, DWARAKA,**|
||**NEW DELHI-110 075,**|
||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.**|
|**4**|**PROJECT DIRECTOR,**|
||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**|
||**“THARAKANS”, HOUSE NO.IV/550,**|
||**1ST FLOOR, NEAR ICICI BANK,**|
||**NH NO.544, RAJAGIRI ROAD,**|
||**KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,**|
||**KERALA-683 104.**|
|**5**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,**|
||**LAND ACQUISITION,**|
||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**|
||**ERNAKULAM-682 030.**|
||**BY ADVS.M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI**|
||**SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE**|
||**SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN, GP**|
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-3-**
## **JUDGMENT**
The petitioners challenge the land acquisition proceedings initiated for widening national highway (NH 17) between existing KMS 422.400 and 438.400 (Paravur-Edappally Section). They also challenge the alignment change between KMS 413.800 and 429.400. A notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquiring land with or without structures falling in the stretch of land from NH66 (Old NH 17) from KM 411.845 to KM 438.6 in the District of Ernakulam was issued on 29/11/2018. Ext.P2 is the said notification. The petitioners also have a case that their land was not mentioned in that notification and that their land was proposed to be acquired without issuing 3A notification.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority of India pointed out that no objections as required under Section 3C were raised by the petitioners within 21 days of the notification. It seems that some of the petitioners raised objections within time and some of them did not raise objections within time. Anyhow, taking note of the nature of the objections, this Court is of the view that the petitioners had not raised any objections that require consideration by the competent authority. One of the
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-4-**
objections raised was that the widening process shall be proceeded without acquiring further land.
3. This Court in several writ petitions had held that the scope of objection under Section 3C is only limited. It can only be related to the use of land for the purpose of national highway or on the ground that acquisition was not for the purpose of formation of the national highway. This Court, after adverting to the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in **Union of India (UOI) v. Kushala Shetty and Ors. [MANU/SC/0796/2011]** had also taken the view that the question regarding change of alignment cannot be considered by any other authority other than the National Highway Authority.
4. In light of the above, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the arguments of the petitioner and that the writ petition is only to be dismissed. However, if the petitioners had not challenged any order passed by the competent authority, liberty is given to them to challenge the order of the competent authority at appropriate time. In regard to the other matters relating to the claim of compensation, the petitioners would certainly be entitled for determination of compensation in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in light of the Central Government notification. The petitioners can very well agitate before the authorities concerned for
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-5-**
redetermination of compensation in accordance with the said Act. It is made clear that no land belonged to the petitioners shall be acquired without publishing a notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
**Sd/-**
**A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE**
**JUDGE**
ms
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-6-**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
**EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 26.03.2005.**
**EXHIBIT P1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 17.08.2010. EXHIBIT P1 B THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2018. EXHIBIT P1 C THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2018. EXHIBIT P1 D THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 06.10.2018. EXHIBIT P1 E THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2018. EXHIBIT P1 F THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 16.02.2019. EXHIBIT P1 G THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 09.06.2017. EXHIBIT P1 H THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 16.02.2019. EXHIBIT P1 I THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 29.09.2018. EXHIBIT P1 J THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 9TH PETITIONER DATED 19.02.2019. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF SECTION 3A NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED ON 21.12.2018. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 08.01.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 28.02.2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08.01.2019.**
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-7-**
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED**|
|---|---|
||**BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED**|
||**08.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P8**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**|
||**3RD PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P9**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**|
||**4TH PETITIONER DATED 29.12.2018.**|
|**EXHIBIT P10**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL.**|
|**EXHIBIT P11**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE**|
||**NEAR PERSON OF 4TH PETITIONER DATED**|
||**14.06.2006.**|
|**EXHIBIT P12**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**|
||**5TH PETITIONER DATED 07.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P13**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**|
||**6TH PETITIONER DATED 02.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P14**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN FILED BY**|
||**THE 7TH PETITIONER DATED 05.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P15**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE**|
||**8TH PETITIONER DATED 04.01.2019.**|
|**EXHIBIT P16**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE**|
||**9TH PETITIONER DATED NIL.**|
|**EXHIBIT P17**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE**|
||**BEND OF THE ROAD DATED NIL.**|
|**EXHIBIT P18**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE**|
||**MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DATED**|
||**28.08.2015.**|
|**EXHIBIT P19**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE**|
||**MINISTRY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DATED**|
||**28.08.2015 THROUGH PRESS INFORMATION**|
||**BUREAU.**|
|**EXHIBIT P20**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED**|
||**29.12.2017.**|
|**EXHIBIT P21**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC**|
||**NO.1324/2019 DATED 16.01.2019.**|
**WP(C).No.11543 of 2019**
**-8-**
**EXHIBIT P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.42534 OF 2018 DATED 10.01.2019.**
**RESPONDENT'S / S EXHIBITS : NIL.**
//TRUE COPY//
PS TO JUDGE