High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed
N. Madhavan Pillai and others v. Union of India and others
Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- A. Muhammed Mustaque
- Judgment Date
- 2020-06-23
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petition is dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- N. Madhavan Pillai
- Ibrahim Kutty
- M. Raveendran Pillai
- P. Shamsudeen
- Fasiludhin
- I. Abdul Vahab
- Abilash Rajan
- Basheerkutty
- G. Rethnamma
- Joseph Shaji A. M.
- Shahal M.
- Manoj Unnithan
- S. Anirudhan
- Sreepa S. Rangan
- V. Sivadmajan
- Geetha P.
- Rehana M. H.
- Ganga Pillai
- Naseema
- Usha Kumari V. N.
- Harifa Beevi H.
- Dr. Ranish S. Rangan
- Leela V.
- R. Madhavan Nair
- Shibila A.
- Ajitha J.
- Aliyarkutty
- Shafeena Begum
- Noushad M.
- B. Shaji
Respondents
- Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi
- State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Public Works Department, Thiruvananthapuram
- National Highways Authority of India, represented by the Chairman
- Road and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Limited
- The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, National Highway Authority of India, Kollam, Kerala
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Respondents
- • Sri. Biju Antony Aloor
- • Sri. K. P. Prasanth
- • Sri. Vishnu Dileep
- • Smt. Bhavna Thampi
- • Sri. Gigi Pappachan
- • Sri. Jobin Abraham
Case Synopsis & Summary
The petitioners challenge land acquisition for widening a National Highway in Kollam district, filed as WP(C) No.16334 of 2019. They contend that survey and alignment fixed in 2009 should suffice for widening purposes and that further land acquisition is unnecessary if the project proceeds on the old alignment. They seek to prohibit or curb the land acquisition by challenging the notifications and to compel construction based on the 2009 alignment rather than acquiring new land. The petitioners also argue that they did not effectively challenge the notification under Sections 3A and 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 within the stipulated window, but urge the Court to scrutinize the necessity and legality of continuing land acquisition. The respondents, led by NHAI, justify widening projects as essential for infrastructure development and emphasize the expertise of NHAI in fixing alignments, as well as reliance on the notification under Section 3D. The court references Union of India v. Kushala Shetty & Others to underscore that a professionally managed statutory body is entrusted with highway development and that judicial review should be narrow, limited to fraud or mala fides. Ultimately, the court finds no basis to interfere and dismisses the petition, reaffirming deference to the expert body’s alignment decisions in the public interest of infrastructure development.
Provisions of Law Cited
National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3ANational Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3CNational Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3DNational Highways Act, 1956 (general)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Judicial review is limited with respect to highway alignments; courts will defer to expert bodies like NHAI
- Rarest of rare cases doctrine cited in context of challenging projects; not applicable here
- Ex facie mala fides standard; absence of proven mala fides limits judicial interference
- Public interest in infrastructure development justifies expert-led alignment decisions
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioners contend that the 2009 alignment survey and fixed alignment should enable widening without further land acquisition; they seek to restrain additional acquisitions and to base highway construction on the 2009 alignment, arguing procedural deficiencies and questionable necessity of further land take.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents rely on the expertise of NHAI, emphasize the public interest in highway development, and maintain that notification under the National Highways Act supports the land acquisition; the court should defer to the expert body and procedural validity under Sections 3A, 3C, and 3D.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. Kushala Shetty & Others | 2011 (12) SCC 69 | Positive | Court relies on this Apex Court decision to uphold limited judicial review of highway projects and deference to NHAI as an expert body. |
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 N. Madhavan Pillai 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**
## **TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1942**
## **WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019(N)**
## **PETITIONERS:**
**1 N. MADHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, S/O. NANU PILLAI, POORADAM, MILACAUD P. O., ADICHANELLOOR, THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571. 2 IBRAHIM KUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, ARATHIL VADAKATHIL, MAILAKKAD P. O., KOTTIYAM, THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571. 3 M. RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KOCHU THUNDATHIL, MAILAKKAD P. O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571. 4 P. SHAMSUDEEN, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, S/O. PAREEDKUNJU, VILAYAIL PUTHENVEDU, SITHARA JUNCTION, KOTTIYAM P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571. 5 FASILUDHIN, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. PAREED KUNJU, NASEEMA MANZIL, KOTTIYAM P. O., MAILAKKAD, THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571. 6 I. ABDUL VAHAB, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS, S/O. IBRAHIMKUTTY, ALIA, MILACAUD P. O., KOTTIYAM P. O., ADICHANELOOR, THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**2**
**7 ABILASH RAJAN, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. JACOB RAJAN, LEELA VILLA, MEENAD, CHATHANNUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 572.**
- **8 BASHEERKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. ALIYARKUNJU, ANEESH NIVAS, MAILAKKAD P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
- **9 G. RETHNAMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. BALACHANDRAN PILLAI, IDEAL HOME, ADDICHANALLOOR, MAILACKADU P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
- **10 JOSEPH SHAJI A. M., AGED 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, MAILAKAD P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
**11 SHAHAL M., AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. IBRAHIM, KUNNATHUKADAYIL VEEDU, MAILAKKAD P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
**12 MANOJ UNNITHAN, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. VASUPILLAI, MADHAVA MANNIRAM, MAILAKKAD, ADICHANELLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
**13 S. ANIRUDHAN, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. SATHYAN, PLAVILAVEEDU, KANNANELLOOR P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**3**
**14 SREEPA S. RANGAN, AGED 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. SHANJU A. S., MANGALATHU THARA, TMN 9, NEAR MAHA VISHNU TEMPLE, THIRUMULLAVARAM, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 012. 15 V. SIVADMAJAN, AGED 61 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, MAKAYIRAM VIKAS, ADICHANELLOOR, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM - 691 571. 16 GEETHA P., AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. SUDHAKARAN, ALUVILA, SITHARA JUN, KOTTIYAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571. 17 REHANA M. H., AGED 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, W/O. ABDUL HAMEED, POURNAMI, PERUMTHURA - 695 903. 18 GANGA PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, VIJAYA MANNIRAM, MAILAKKAD P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571. 19 NASEEMA, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, W/O. FAZALUDDIN, NAZEEMQ MANIL, KOTTIYAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571. 20 USHA KUMARI V. N., AGED 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, W/O. SADANANDAN, THEJUS, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM - 691 571.**
**21 HARIFA BEEVI H., AGED 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. BASHEERKUTTY A., ANEESH NIVAS, MAILAKKAD P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571.**
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**4**
**22 DR. RANISH S. RANGAN, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. SREERANGAN S., ANJUTHENGIL PUTHENVEEDU, KOTTIYAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571. 23 LEELA V., AGED 68 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, W/O. SIVANANDAN, SHEEJA BHAVAN, KOTTIYAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571. 24 R. MADHAVAN NAIR, AGED 88 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, S/O. RAMAN NAIR, SINDHU BHAVAN, MAILAKKAD P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571. 25 SHIBILA A., AGED 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, W/O. N. K. SALIM, BISMI COTTAGE, MAILAKKAD P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571.**
**26 AJITHA J., AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. BASKARAN NAIR, KAVUVILA VEEDU, MAILAKAD P. O., KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 571.**
**27 ALIYARKUTTY, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. ANSAR KUNJU, HAZAN MANZIL, KOTTIYAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571.**
**28 SHAFEENA BEGUM, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, W/O. MUNEER, ASNA HOUSE, MAILACKADU, KOTTIYAM P. O., THAZHUTHALA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 571.**
**29 NOUSHAD M., AGED 51 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, MOOZHIYIL VEEDU, MAILACKADU P. O., KOLLAM - 691 571.**
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**5**
|**30**||**B. SHAJI,**|
|---|---|---|
|||**AGED 52 YEARS,**|
|||**OCC. BUSINESS, S/O. BALACHANDRA PILLAI,**|
|||**NAVARATNA, MAILACKADU P. O.,**|
|||**ADICHANALLOOR, THAZHUTHALA,**|
|||**KOLLAM - 691 571.**|
|||**BY ADVS.**|
|||**SRI. BIJU ANTONY ALOOR**|
|||**SRI. K. P. PRASANTH**|
|||**SRI. VISHNU DILEEP**|
|||**SMT. BHAVNA THAMPI**|
|||**SRI. GIGI PAPPACHAN**|
|||**SRI. JOBIN ABRAHAM**|
|**RESPONDENTS**<br>**:**|||
|**1**||**UNION OF INDIA,**|
|||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD**|
|||**TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.**|
|**2**||**STATE OF KERALA,**|
|||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,**|
|||**PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**|
|||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**|
|**3**||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**|
|||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN, G 586,**|
|||**SECTOR 10, DWARAKA,**|
|||**NEW DELHI - 110 075.**|
|**4**||**ROAD AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION**|
|||**OF KERALA LIMITED,**|
|||**2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING,**|
|||**MAHAKAVI VAILOPALLI ROAD,**|
|||**KOCHI - 682 025.**|
|**5**||**THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,**|
|||**LAND ACQUISITION,**|
|||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**|
|||**KOLLAM, KERALA - 691 013.**|
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**6**
*** ADDL.THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, R6 (MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT), T.C.36/414(5), KOYIKKAL VEEDU, KAVULAINE, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 024, KERALA.**
***ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/07/2019 IN IA 01/2019.**
**R1 – SRI. K. K. SETHUKUMAR, CGC R6 – SRI. K. A. SALIL NARAYANAN, SC SRI. Y. JAFARKHAN, GP**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).19475/2018(H) AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**7**
## **JUDGMENT**
This writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition
of land for the National Highways. Petitioners prayers are as follows:
_“i) Writ petition may kindly be allowed._
_ii) Issue a writ of Certiorari or Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction prohibiting the 1[st] and 2[nd] Respondents from acquiring more land from the petitioners._
_iii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding to Respondent No.1 and 2 to utilize the land acquired in the year 2009 instead of acquiring more land from the petitioners at the instance of Respondent No.3 to 5._
_iv) Issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to the 1[st] to 5[th] Respondents to construct the highway on the basis of the old alignment from the land acquired from both the southern and northern sides in the year 2009._
_v) Interim Order as per prayer clause (ii) to (iv) may be passed._
_vi) Pass any other such Orders as this Honorable Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”_
2. Petitioners essentially challenge a notification for
acquiring the land without making a challenge to the
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**8**
notification. Petitioners would contend that there were survey and alignment in the year 2009 and based on the alignment fixed in the year 2009 without acquiring further land the National Highways can be widened.
3. In this matter, notification under Section 3D of the National Highways Act, 1956 has been issued. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit filed by the Project Director, petitioners failed to raise any objection under Section 3C of the National Highways Act, 1956 within 21 days of notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956.
4. The National Highways Authority is an expert body in fixing the alignment. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
_**Union of India v. Kushala Shetty & Others**_ [2011 (12) SCC 69] held as follows:-
_“28. Here, it will be apposite to mention that NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways. The projects involving construction of new highways and widening and development of the existing highways, which are vital for development of infrastructure in the country, are entrusted to experts in the filed of highways. It comprises of persons having vast knowledge and expertise in the field of highway development and_
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**9**
_maintenance. NHAI prepares and implements projects relating to development and maintenance of National Highways after thorough study by experts in different fields. Detailed project reports are prepared keeping in view the relative factors including intensity of heavy vehicular traffic and larger public interest. The Courts are not at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the particular project and whether the particular alignment would sub serve the larger public interest. In such matters, the scope of judicial review is very limited. The Court can nullity the acquisition of land and, in rarest of rare cases, the particular project, if it is found to be ex-facie contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides. In the case in hand, neither any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act has been established nor the charge of malice in fact has been proved. Therefore, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.”_
5. In the light of these facts and circumstances
there is no scope for interfering with this matter.
The above writ petition is dismissed.
## **Sd/-**
## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE**
SPR
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**10**
## **APPENDIX OF 16334/2019**
## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:**
|**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
|---|---|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.1.**|
|**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.2.**|
|**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.3.**|
|**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.4.**|
|**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.5.**|
|**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.6.**|
|**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.7.**|
|**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.8.**|
|**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.9.**|
|**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.10.**|
|**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.11.**|
|**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.12.**|
|**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.13.**|
|**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.14.**|
|**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.15.**|
|**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.16.**|
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**11**
|**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
|---|---|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.17.**|
|**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.18.**|
|**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.19.**|
|**EXHIBIT P20**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.20.**|
|**EXHIBIT P21**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.21.**|
|**EXHIBIT P22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.22.**|
|**EXHIBIT P23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.23.**|
|**EXHIBIT P24**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.24.**|
|**EXHIBIT P25**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.25.**|
|**EXHIBIT P26**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.26.**|
|**EXHIBIT P27**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.27.**|
|**EXHIBIT P28**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.28.**|
|**EXHIBIT P29**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.29.**|
|**EXHIBIT P30**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS AND**|
||**IDENTITY CARDS OF THE PETITIONER NO.30.**|
|**EXHIBIT P31**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF SURVEY IN**|
||**THE YEAR 2009.**|
|**EXHIBIT P32**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF SURVEY IN**|
||**THE YEAR 2016.**|
|**EXHIBIT P33**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE**|
||**PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE ON 29/04/2017.**|
**WP(C).No.16334 OF 2019**
**12**
|**EXHIBIT P34**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE TO**|
|---|---|
||**THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR ON**|
||**08/03/2018.**|
|**EXHIBIT P35**|**COPY OF LETTER FORWARDED TO THE**|
||**EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BY THE BLOCK**|
||**PANCHAYATH.**|
|**EXHIBIT P36**|**COPY OF NEWSPAPER CUTTING.**|
|**RESPONDENT'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**<br> **NIL.**|