Chirakkara Powrasamithi v. State of Kerala and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 9438 of 2013 (D) --------------------------PETITIONER(S): -------------1. CHIRAKKARA POWRASAMITHI REG.NO.TVM/TC/696/2012, KAIMANAM, PAPPANAMCODU TRIVANDRUM-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY JOHN D.NETTO. 2. M.NAZEERA CHIRAKKARA VARUVILAKATHU, PAPPANAMCODU P.O. TRIVANDRUM-18. 3. M.SUHARBAN TC 51/132, CHIRAKKARA VARUVILAKATHU, PAPPANAMCODU P.O. TRIVANDRUM-18. BY ADVS.SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (NH) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KERALA STATE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 4. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA G-5&6, SECTOR X, DWARAKA NEW DELHI-110075 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 5. PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, TC 29/1539/1 RAJASREE, PERUNTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU POST-695 034. 6. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY R1-R3,R5-R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-10-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.12342 OF 2013, THE COURT ON 10-12-2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9438 of 2013 (D) --------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 17-4-2012. EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NUMBERED AS GO(MS) NO.29/10/PWD DT.27-5-2010. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THAT WIDENING UP TO 22 METRES WOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT WIDTH. EXHIBIT P4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NUMBERED AS GO(MS) NO.419/2011/RD DATED 15-11-2011. EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION NUMBERED AS K43907/11 DATED 9-8-2012. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.2-11-2012. EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.5-12-2013 IN WPC NO.27073/2012. EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16-3-2013. EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 25-3-2013. EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT OF EAST-COAST ROAD. EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS ------------------------- EXHIBIT R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.5261 OF 2013. /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE ## **K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------------------W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] December, 2013** ## **J U D G M E N T** These Writ Petitions challenge the proposal of the State to widen the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila Road in Trivandrum district. W.P(c) No.9438 of 2013 is filed by the Chirakkara Powrasamithi, a Society registered under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, and two others. The society has been formed for the alleged purpose of protecting the welfare and well-being of the residents of the area. Petitioners 2 and 3 are owners of small extents of properties by the side of the road in question. They stand the prospect of losing their properties in the acquisition. 2. W.P(c) No.12342 of 2013 is filed by a person who holds an item of property, 5 cents in extent, where she is residing with her husband and children after having let out the ground floor of the building. According to her, 3.5 cents of her property would be lost in the acquisition. A substantial portion of the building also would have to be demolished. Since identical issues are raised and identical contentions put forward, both the **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 2 Writ Petitions are heard and disposed of together. W.P(c) No.12342 of 2013 is treated as the leading case and the parties as well as the exhibits produced are referred to in the order in which they are referred to in the said writ Petition. 3. Advocate Thomas Abraham appears for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions. According to the learned counsel, the proposed widening is unnecessary and is being pursued only at the instance of certain influential persons who stand to benefit from the same. The present proposal is to widen the KaramanaKaliyikkavila Road to a width of 30.2 meters. It is the contention of the learned counsel that a width of 22 meters is sufficient to meet the present requirements of traffic and therefore, the proposed widening is uncalled for. Though the KaramanaKaliyikkavila Road has a total length of 46 kilometers, the proposal at present is only to widen the road for a distance of 12 kilometers. The said widening, according to the counsel, would only result in wastage of public money. It would not serve any purpose for the reason that the road portion before and after the said stretch would continue to remain narrow, creating traffic congestion. It is the further contention of the learned counsel **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 3 for the petitioners that there is a by-pass road from Kazhakkoottam to Karod, which forms part of the National Highway-47, which is being developed by the National Highways Authority of India. The National Highway-47 extends up to Karod which is just 2 kilometers before Kaliyikkavila. Therefore, if the road is widened over the 2 kilometer stretch from Karod to Kaliyikkavila also, the entire distance from Kazhakkoottam to Kaliyikkavila would have a road with sufficient width and facility to accommodate the present traffic. In view of the existence of the parallel by-pass road referred to above, it is contended that there is no necessity for the present proposal for widening the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila Road. After the by-pass road is commissioned, the major portion of the traffic from KaramanaKaliyikkavila Road would get diverted to the said by-pass road, it is contended. It is therefore contended that the present proposal without considering the above relevant factors is unsustainable. 4. Further, according to Advocate Thomas Abraham, the present proposal is initiated to favour certain influential persons who own properties with no road frontage. The acquisition would eliminate the holdings of small land owners leaving their **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 4 properties with road frontage. It is also contended that large extents of Government lands are available on the southern side of the road. If the Government lands are utilised for the purpose of widening, the cost of acquisition could be reduced. The road could also be straightened, it is contended. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the road up to Killippalam has only a width of 22 meters and therefore, there is no purpose in widening the present road to a width of 30.2 meters. The petitioners attack the order Ext.P9 (Ext.P10 in WP(c) No.9438 of 2013) passed by the Government rejecting their objections to the acquisition, contending that though the above aspects had been raised in their objections, they have not been properly considered. Therefore, the petitioners seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside the land acquisition proceedings. 5. The learned Government Pleader Sri Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil refutes the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. According to the learned Government Pleader, the projected traffic volume demands widening of the road to six lane standards. In order to provide the said facilities, **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 5 a width of at least 30.2 meters is necessary. The above aspects have been considered by the Government in Ext.P9, it is pointed out. All the objections raised by the petitioners have been specifically addressed, considered and rejected by Ext.P9. The reasons given for such rejection are tenable and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The requirements have been fixed taking into consideration the expected increase in the volume of traffic also. With respect to the contention that the Government lands available on the southern side of the road have not been utilsed, it is pointed out that the Government lands have also been utilised to the maximum extent possible. Almost an equal extent of land has been utilised on the northern side also, according to the learned Government Pleader. According to the learned Government Pleader, the by-pass road that is being developed by the National Highways Authority of India is on B.O.T (Build, Operate and Transfer) basis. Therefore, toll would have to be paid for every vehicle for the use of the said road. The high rates of the toll would dissuade the vehicles using Karamana-Kaliyikkavila Road from using the by-pass road. The present acquisition is proposed, together with a **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 6 rehabilitation package that is intended to rehabilitate the land owners who are displaced by the acquisition. Though malafides have been alleged by the petitioners, absolutely no material or evidence has been placed before this Court to substantiate the allegations. Therefore, it is contended that the allegation regarding malafides is only to be rejected. According to the learned Government Pleader, yet another feature of the present acquisition is that the structural value of the buildings lost in the present acquisition are being paid without deducting any depreciation. It is also pointed out, that though a number of land owners would be affected by the present acquisition, only the petitioners have raised complaints. All the other land owners are co-operating with the acquisition, considering the benefits that would emanate therefrom. Since only portions of the properties owned by the petitioners are sought to be acquired, they would be in possession of the balance extent of their properties. In view of the above, the contention that the other persons who own lands which do not have road frontage would be benefited, is not true. Since all the above aspects have been considered properly in Ext.P9, it is contended that these Writ **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 7 Petitions are only to be dismissed. According to the learned Government Pleader, as per judgment dated 11.04.2013 in WP(c) no.5261 of 2013, I have already dismissed another Writ Petition in which similar contentions had been raised. 6. Heard Advocate Thomas Abraham, who appears for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and Sri Thomas Antony, who appears for respondents 7 and 8. 7. According to Sri Thomas Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila Road has a total length of 46 kilometers. The present proposal is only to widen a stretch of 12 kilometers. Therefore, it is contended that the present widening would not achieve any purpose since the rest of the road would continue to be narrow and congested. Ext.P1 is the order issued by the Government accepting in principle the proposal to widen the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila Road to a width of 30.2 meters. It is stated in Ext.P1 that the decision was taken after a meeting with the peoples' representatives also. Accordingly, the project has been accepted in principle. The same is to be implemented at a cost of Rs.640 crores. Ext.P1 is dated 27.05.2010. It is stated in Ext.P1 that the proposal to **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 8 widen the road had emerged decades back. Though the proposal was accepted in principle by the Government in the year 2010, the acquisition proceedings have commenced only now. It is also worth noticing from Ext.P1 that the Government decision therein is to implement the project in a phased manner. Accordingly, sanction has been given for acquisition of land for the initial stretch of 12 kilometers from chainage 570/000 to 582/000. Ext.P1 makes it clear that the present project is only for implementation of the first phase of the widening proposal. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that only a 12 kilometer stretch of the road is proposed to be widened, is not correct. The present acquisition is only the first phase of implementation of the project for widening the entire stretch of the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila Road. The Government decision to implement the project in different stages is understandable, considering the difficulty faced by the State in finding finances for the proposal in a situation where no funds from the Central Government would be forthcoming, as noted in the opening paragraph of Ext.P1. It is no doubt true that even after the present proposal is implemented, traffic on the stretches that **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 9 remain narrow would cause congestion. But, that would only be a temporary phenomenon and would have to be put up with, until the remaining stretches are also widened. Therefore, the objection against the proposal to widen only a portion of the road has to fail. 8. The petitioners have raised another contention to the effect that the road up to Killippalam has only a width of 22 meters. Therefore, the present widening would not ease the traffic problems in the area. The above contention has been considered in para.5 of Ext.P9. It is stated that the stretch of road up to Killippalam is serviced by a number of by-roads through which, a sizeable portion of the traffic gets diverted, thereby easing the traffic congestion even though, the said portion is not proposed to be widened. It is also stated that the traffic volume beyond Karamana is much more for the reason that feeder roads joining the junctions at Killippalam, Poojappara, Pappanamcode, Karakkamandapam, Nemon, Vellayani, Pravachambalam etc. bring traffic from other areas onto the road in question creating severe congestion. The above factual data on the basis of which the objections raised by the **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 10 petitioners have been rejected, remain uncontroverted by any material or evidence. Therefore, rejection of the said objection in Ext.P9 is also found to be justified. 9. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the width proposed should be reduced from 30.2 meters to 22 meters. With the aid of Ext.P2 sketch, it is contended that, for providing the facility for four lane traffic with paved shoulders on both sides as well as footpath, a width of 22 meters is sufficient. Ext.P3 sketch is also relied upon to contend that the original proposal was only for a width of 22 meters. Survey was also conducted for the said width only. Therefore, it is contended that the widening to a width of 30.2 meters is absolutely unnecessary. The same, according to the petitioners, is being attempted, with the oblique motive of providing road frontage to the persons holding large extents of properties with no road frontage. It is alleged that with the acquisition of the small holdings of the petitioners, such properties would get road frontage. A reduction in the width would result in a substantial reduction in the cost of acquisition. Further acquisition if necessary could be undertaken after **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 11 assessing the volume of traffic on the subject road after commissioning the by-pass road also. 10. The above contention has been considered in para.4 of Ext.P9. A study conducted by the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as `NATPAC' for short) has been relied upon. As per the study conducted by the NATPAC in 2011, the total daily traffic using the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila stretch is in the range of 42,500 Passenger Car Units (hereinafter referred to as `PCU'). The studies conducted show that only a minor portion of the traffic would get diverted to the National Highway by-pass. The volume of traffic that is expected to be diverted is stated to be 11.5% of the total PCU, which works out to 4900 PCU. On the basis of the above data, it has been found in Ext.P9 that during the design period of the road, which is upto the year 2018, the traffic volume is expected to touch 60,000 PCU. Taking into account the above projections, it has been stated in Ext.P9 that provision for developing the road into a road having six lanes had been adopted. It was for the said reason that the width of the road was fixed at 30.2 meters. **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 12 11. It cannot be said that the above reasoning contained in Ext.P9 is either perverse or whimsical. However, the petitioners have mounted an attack against the NATPAC study on which reliance has been placed. It is contended that there is no such study in existence. Though the 6[th] respondent has been arrayed as a party to W.P(c) No.12342 of 2013, there is no appearance for the said respondent. This is in spite of the fact that, notice was served on the 6[th] respondent through special messenger. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the conduct of the 6[th] respondent in not responding to the notice issued by this Court clearly indicates that no study worth the name was conducted by the said organisation. For the above reason, it is contended that no reliance whatsoever should be placed on the NATPAC study that has been referred to. 12. Every road that is sought to be laid or developed to modern standards, has to cater to the needs of the traffic that is expected to use it. It would have to accommodate and contain the volume of traffic, for the use of which it is intended. The expected growth in the volume of traffic would have to be borne **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 13 in mind while planning the width of the road and providing facilities that are required on it. All the above aspects would have to be considered, contemplated and taken into account by the authorities that are entrusted with the duty of taking such a decision. Such decisions have to be taken by persons who are technically qualified and competent to take into account the technical aspects referred to above. Of course the Government may scale down the facilities due to financial constraints. The width of a road has to be fixed therefore taking into account the technical requirements as well as the finance available for implementing the project. Such a decision has been taken in Ext.P1. The same is a policy decision, which is not open to challenge in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The contentions of the petitioners even on the technical aspects have been considered and met by Ext.P1. It cannot be said that the 1[st] respondent has not considered their objections. Therefore, the contentions of the petitioners on the above count also have to fail. 13. Yet another contention of the petitioners is that, land is being acquired at present only from the northern side of the **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 14 road. It is pointed out that there are substantial extents of Government lands available on the southern side. If the lands in possession of the Government or Governmental agencies are acquired, it is contended that the cost of acquisition would be substantially reduced and the lands of the petitioners could be spared. The above objection has been considered in Ext.P9 at para.11. It has been found in Ext.P9 that, confining acquisition of land to one side of the road only would result in a shift in the alignment of the road. The alignment, according to Ext.P9, has been fixed taking the required land equally from both sides of the road. Therefore, it has been stated that the above suggestion cannot be accepted. It is not in dispute that lands from both sides of the road are being acquired by the present proposal. The reason stated for not accepting the suggestion to change the alignment is only reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any reason to fault the same. 14. The next contention raised by the petitioners is that the National Highway by-pass road that stretches from Kazhakkoottam to Karod is a place just 2 kilometers before Kaliyikkavila. Once the National Highway By-pass road is **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 15 commissioned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, the entire traffic on the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila road would get diverted to the National Highway by-pass. Therefore, widening of the subject road would be required only for the 2 kilometer stretch that connects Karod and Kaliyikkavila. Examples of towns where such National Highway by-passes are in existence, are referred to, to contend that the onward traffic would never opt for a detour through the congested town in preference to the more convenient by-pass. The resultant position would be that, the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila road would be used only by the small volume of traffic that wants to get into the town. It is contended that the above aspect has not received the due attention of the authorities. They have not taken into account the impact of the National Highway by-pass on the volume of traffic on the Karamana-Kaliyikkavila road. 15. A perusal of para.4 of Ext.P9 shows that the above aspect has also been considered by the 1[st] respondent. As already noticed above, what is stated in Ext.P9 is that the width of the road has been fixed taking into account the expected increase in the volume of traffic during the entire design period **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 16 of the road, which is upto the year 2018. The expected increase in traffic volume in 2018 is 60000 PCU. Therefore, it has been found that the proposed width is necessary for the road. 16. Apart from the above, the learned Government Pleader has drawn my attention to the statement filed by the National Highways Authority, wherein it has been stated that the said road was being developed for providing a 45 meters right of way. The said project is being implemented on BOT basis. According to the learned Government Pleader tolls would have to be paid for using the said road. The high rates of tolls would dissuade a substantial section of the traffic from using the said road. Therefore, it is contended that diversion of traffic to the extent expected by the petitioner is not going to take place. The handbook of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (hereinafter referred to as `the MORTH' for short) stipulates the dimensions that are required for widening of a road in lanes. A paved shoulder of 3 meters width is required on each side of the road in accordance with the stipulations made by the Indian Roads Congress (hereinafter referred to as the `IRC' for short). It is the paved shoulder that has to accommodate the slow **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 17 moving traffic and provide the facility for the slow moving vehicles to merge with the other traffic on the road. Such areas would provide a place for stopping a vehicle in times of emergency. It is on the basis of the above reasons that the objections of the petitioners have been rejected in Ext.P9. The reasons cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, the attack of the petitioners on the above ground also has to fail. 17. The petitioners have yet another contention that the entire acquisition is vitiated by mala fides. In W.P(c) No.12342 of 2013, allegations have been made that some influential construction companies are behind the widening proposal. It is also stated that there were attempts to convert the road into a BOT road. In para.19 also similar vague allegations are raised. The petitioners have not been able to provide any further details, either regarding the names of the persons at whose instance the widening is proposed, or regarding the persons who are pulling the strings from behind the scenes. No materials or evidence to support the plea of malafides is also available in these proceedings. Though it is stated that many land owners holding extensive areas of land without road frontage would be benefited **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 18 from the acquisition, the said allegation is also unsupported by any material or evidence. Considering a similar plea, the Apex Court has held in **Union of India (UOI) v. Dr. Kushala Shetty and Ors.** [2011 KHC 821] in para.21 as follows: “The plea of the Respondents that alignment of the proposed widening of National Highways was manipulated to suit the vested interests sounds attractive but lacks substance and merits rejection because except making a bald assertion, the Respondents have neither given particulars of the persons sought to be favoured nor placed any material to prima facie prove that the execution of the project of widening the National Highways is actuated by mala fides and, in the absence of proper pleadings and material, neither the High Court could nor this Court can make a roving enquiry to fish out some material and draw and dubious conclusion that the decision and actions of the Appellants are tainted by mala fides.” The above passage applies on all fours to the present case also. Therefore, it has to be held that the allegations regarding mala fides are without any basis. 18. The final contention is that the consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners as per Ext.P9 is not in **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 19 conformity with the principles laid down by the judicial precedents on the point. However, before we proceed to the judicial precedents, it is necessary to take note of the circumstances under which Ext.P9 came to be passed. A Writ Petition, W.P(c) No.27073 of 2012 had been filed by the petitioners in W.P(c) No.9438 of 2013 challenging the proposal to widen the road from Karamana to Kaliyikkavila. It was alleged that though they had submitted their objections to the proposal, the same had not been considered. Therefore, they sought for the issue of appropriate directions for the consideration of their objections. It was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader at that time that their objections could be considered during the enquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short), which was in progress at that time. However, it was contended that the objections of the petitioners being against the alignment of the road itself, the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act were not competent to consider them under Section 5A of the Act. It was in the said circumstances that as per the judgment produced as Ext.P9 in W.P(c) No.9438 of 2013, a direction was issued to **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 20 the 2[nd] respondent to consider the said direction. As noticed above, the 2[nd] respondent has considered the objections raised by the petitioners properly. The reasons for rejection of the objections of the petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable. The consideration of the objections also has been found to be objective. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P9. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision in **Surinder Singh Brar and Others v. Union of India and Others** [2013 (1) SCC 403]. In the said case, what was at issue was whether the objections raised under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act had been properly considered or not. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the recommendations made by the District Collector without duly considering the objections made under Section 5A (1), the submissions made at the hearing under Section 5A(2) or failure of the appropriate Government to take an objective decision on such objections in the light of the recommendations made by the Collector, would denude the decision of the Government of statutory finality. It has also been held that if the statutorily engrafted procedural safeguards are not complied **W.P(c) Nos.9438 of 2013-D and 12342 of 2013-P** 21 with, there would be a violation of Natural Justice. However, the said dictum cannot be of any help to the petitioners in these cases for the reason that, the objections raised by the petitioners in these cases have all been considered by the impugned order Ext.P9, properly. In these cases, as already held by me, the proposed acquisition is for a public purpose and is fully justified, in the circumstances. For the above reasons, Ext.P9 is sustained. These Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- _**(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)**_ rtr/