IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 6602 of 2008(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. GEORGE JOSEPH, VELLOOKKUNNEL CHEMMALAMATTOM,MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. K.M.IMMANUEAL, KAIPPANANNIKKAL HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O.,KANJIRAPPALLY 686 508 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. SEBASTIAN K.VEEDON, VALIAVEETTIL HOUSE ARUVITHURA P.O.,ERATTUPETTA,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. T.C.THOMAS, THADIKKAL ARUVITHURA P.O. ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. JACOB JOSEPH, AREEPARAMBIL KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. K.S.SEBASTIAN, KOTTARATHIL HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O., 686 508 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. P.T.JOSEPH,PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE VEILUKANAPARA, ERATTUPETTA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 8. C.S.RAMAKRISHNAN, CHARALEL HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O. 686 508 KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 9. GEO GEORGE THOMAS @ VARKEY VELOOKKUNNEL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 10. V.V.JOSEPH,VELLOOKKUNNEL HOUSE ARUVITHURA P.O.ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 11. REJI MATHEW, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 12. M.G.THANKAPPAN, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 13. E.P.KRISHNAN, ETTOLIL HOUSE POOVARANI, ELIKKULAM P.O. 14. GEORGE PUTHUMANA, PUTHUMANA HOUSE VANCHIMALA P.O.,KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 15. VARKEY THOMMAN, KUZHIPPALAYIL HOUSE,KAPPADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 16. VARKEY JOHN, CHANDRANKUNNEL HOUSE KAPPADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 17. SHEELA JOSE, KALLIVAYALIL, KALAKETTY PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 18. SHAJI GOPALAN, THERKKATTIL PANACHIPARA P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 19. K.J.THOMAS, KUZHIPPALAYIL,KAPPAD P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 20. VARKEY JOSEPH, KURUVINAPAKUTHIYIL HOUSE MALLIKASERY P.O.KOTTAYAM. 21. VARKEY THRESIAMMA, KAPPIYAMKAL, KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 22. GEORGEKUTTY JOSEPH, AREEPARAMBIL KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 23. SHAJI M.T.MUNDAKKAL HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 24. THOMAS JOHN,AREEPARAMBIL KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 25. MATHAI THOMAS,VATTOTHU HOUSE KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 26. M.JACOB JOSE, MUTTATHUPADAM KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 27. JOSEP CHERIYAN,VETTICKAL HOUSE KAPPADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 28. V.A.HARIDAS, 'DARSANA' VATTODIL KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 29. P.M.CHACKO,PALATHINAL,PINNAKKANAD KALAKETTY P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 30. CICILY JOSEPH,PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE VAILKANAMPARA, ERATTUUPETTA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 31. BENNY STEPHEN, PLATHOTTAM HOUSE ARUVITHURA P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 32. K.V.RAJU,KANDATHIL HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 33. SIBY GEORGE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE THIDANADU P.O.KOTTAYAM 34. JOJI KURIAN, AYALOOKUNNEL, CHEMMALAMATTOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 35. ALIKUTTY KURIAN, AYALOOKUNNEL,CHEMMALAMATTOM,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 36. GEORGE JOSEPH,THOTUMKAL HOUSE CHEMMALAMATTOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 37. JACOB SEBASTIAN, VELLOOKKUNNEL THIDANADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM 38. K.C.ANITHA, KUNNAKKATTUPADAVIL UZHAVOOR EAST. 39. ELIYAMMA MATHAI,PLATHOTTATHIL, AMPARA P.O. 40. V.M.DAVID MATHEW, VALLIKAPPIL ARUVITHURA P.O.,KOTTAYAM. 41. P.I.THOMAS, PALLIPARAMBIL, ARUVITHURA PO KOTTAYAM 42. MATHEW SEBASTIAN,MANIYAKUPAA HOUSE ARUVITHURA PO KOTTAYAM . 43. RAJAN V.A. VARAKUKALA,ERATTUPETTA P.O. 44. P.N. SURESH BABU, PARAYIL, PLASSANAL PO. 45. M.A.ABRAHAM, MARAMATTOM, AMPAA P.O. 46. DR.K.C.BABY OLIKKAL HOUSE, PALAI P.O. 47. JOICE GEORGE,VALIPARAMBIL, BHARANANGANAM. 48. ROHINIKKUTTYAMMA.P., THERUMPURATHU HOUSE,AMPARA P.O. 49. M.S.SCARIA, MANDAPATHIL, MELAMPARA PO. 50. R.BALAJI ALLOOKUNNEL HOUSE, MELAMPARA P.O. 51. ABRAHAM JAMES, THEKKEATTATHU HOUSE BHARANANGANAM P.O. 52. RANI GEORGE, VALIYAPARAMBIL BHARANANGANAM P.O. 53. FR.KURIAN AMMANATTUKUNNEL, DIRECTOR DEEPTHI BHAVAN, MELAMPARA. 54. INNOCENT MATHEW, MANNORETTONNIL, MELAMPARA. 55. JOSE JOSEPH, PULICKAL HOUSE, PLASSANAL P.O.,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 56. SUNNY GEORGE,PULICKATHAZHA, PLASSANAL P.O. 57. ALICE JOSEPH, PULICKATHAZHA,PLASSANAL PO 58. LITSY T.JOSEPH, THANNICKUNNEL, PLASSANAL PO 59. ANTONY ABRAHAM, THANNIPOTHIYIL PLASSANAL P.O. 60. K.K.JOSEPH, KADAPLACKAL, PLASSANAL PO. 61. ANTONY CHACKO, THANNIPOTHIYIL, PLASSANAL P.O. 62. N.C.CHACKO, NAMPUDAKATTU HOUSE PLASSANAL P.O. 63. T.C.MATHEW, THEKKEDATHU, PLASSANAL P.O.. 64. LEENA PIOUS,PEMPILAKUNNEL, PLASSANAL P.O. 65. VARKEY JOSEPH, PEMPILAKUNNEL, PLASSANAL P.O. 66. BENNY GEORGE, PEMPILAKUNNEL, PLASSANAL P.O. 67. M.G.PRAKASH KUMAR, MUTHALAKUZHIYIL,PLASSANAL P.O. 68. ROSAMMA BRIGHT, CHERRY COTTAGE, ERATTUPETTA-1 69. P.R.VASUDEVAN NAIR,PANDIAYANKAL KUDUMBA YOGAM,PLASSANAL P.O. 70. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA, KUNNEL HOUSE PLASSANAL P.O. 71. P.V.GEORGE, PEMPILAKUNNEL, PLASSANAL P.O. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.** ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.6602 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4[th] April, 2008. ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners are agriculturists of the Villages of Erattupetta, Thalappalam, Bharananganam, Kanjirappally, Kadanad and Kondoor within the Meenachil and Kanjirappally Taluks, Kottayam District. According to them, they are aggrieved by the action l of the respondents 4 and 5 for acquisition of the land, for the proposed Angamali -Erumeli Broad-Gauge Railway line. A Government of India Enterprise, by name RITES, had conducted Engineering-cum-Traffic survey for the proposed Broad-Gauge railway line between Angamali and Erumeli, via Muvattupuzha, and prepared report. The apprehension of the petitioners is that respondents have taken a decision to accept Alternative I proposal as against Alternative IV proposal. The case put forward by the petitioners is that if Alternate I proposal is accepted, that will not serve any purpose and it will upset the ecology of the land. So, they want this Court to issue a direction to the respondents to accept Alternative IV proposal for the proposed Angamaly-Erumeli railway line. It is also their case that various local authorities have raised objection against the acquisition of land as per **W.P.(C) No.6602/2008** 2 alternate notification, if any, for acquisition, as and when the same is issued. The petitioners have produced Ext.P7 representation of the Sabarimala Pilgrims Welfare Committee and resolutions passed by the Kadanad, Bharananganam, Thalappalam, Erattupetta, Thidanad Grama Panchayats, as evidenced by Exts.P8 to P12, to show that all these local authorities and the Samithi is opposing the present railway line, accepting an alternate notification, if any, for acquisition, as and when the same is issued. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways submitted that the proposal has been studied by the railways and a decision was taken and the petitioners can only challenge the notification. At present, there is no provision of law which enables a person/an organisation/a local authority who want to raise objections against the proposed railway line or road etc. So, these petitioners, whose lands are not notified for acquisition, as at present, have no chance to raise any objection. So, I am of the view that it is only just and proper that whenever State of Union undertakes a project, which affects the public at large, the persons, organisations and local authorities who are likely to be benefited or affected by that proceedings shall also be given an opportunity to raise objections or express their views, before issuing the notification under Section 4(1) **W.P.(C) No.6602/2008** 3 of the Land Acquisition Act. This can be done by making the details of the project with alignment sketch and plans in the web site, or make available to the public under the provisions of Right to Information Act. It may not be possible to public the whole report in the news papers. But as and when the project report or the alignment and sketched plans are prepared by the requisitioning authority, public notice shall be given in prominent dailies in vernacular as well as in English, regarding the availability of the project report, plan etc., and also the date for filing objections, views etc. When the date fixed for filing objections is over, a public hearing shall be conducted with public notice. Such a course is absolutely necessary to avoid the allegation that a particular alignment is accepted on account of undue influence exercised by the land mafia. In many cases, there will be objection when the project is implemented. In such cases, the requisitioning authority is likely to raise an objection a lot or money has already been spent for implementing the project. All such objections can be avoided and there will be transparency for the implementation of the project by giving an opportunity to beneficiaries and persons who are likely to be affected by the project of hearing prior to Section 4(1) notification regarding major projects such as new roads, bye-pass, railway line or airport etc. **W.P.(C) No.6602/2008** 4 ## 3. In **M.Naga Venkata Lakshmi v. Visakhapatnam** **Municipal Corporation and Another** (2007 (8) SCC 748), the Supreme Court has consider a similar issued, and held as follows:- “6. ........ Before making the zonal plan and the master plan, the Authority was required to give an opportunity of hearing to the persons who may be affected thereby. ” 4. I am of the view that similar procedure is to be followed in this case also by the requisitioning authority, and the State Government, in view of the importance of the matter. So, there will be a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to invite objections or suggestions by the public organisations and local authorities, within a time frame, hear and dispose of the same, after hearing the parties on merits. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations. Petitioners are given two weeks time from today to file their objections before respondents 2 and 3, raising all their objections, suggestions etc. If such objections are filed by the local authorities, organisations, or individuals, the same shall also be considered, with due notice to all of them, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the last date fixed for receipt of **W.P.(C) No.6602/2008** 5 such objections. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be issued only after disposing of such objections, if any, filed. 6. Forward a copy of this judgment to the 3[rd] respondent who shall communicate copies of the same to all Heads or Departments and District collector to follow the procedure while acquiring land for major projects such as construction of by-pass, new roads, railway line, airport etc. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. ## **K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE** **nj.**