High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-09-01Writ petition dismissed; petitioners not grante...

Naseeda and others v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Devan Ramachandran
Judgment Date: 2021-09-01
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed. The court held it is not within its competence to alter the alignment fixed by the competent Authority, a decision settled by Kushala Shetty and other precedents. It declined affirmative declarations on the drinking water issue and stated that rehabilitation steps should be undertaken by NHAI under RFCTLARR Act, 2013. However, petitioners are left free to approach the competent Authority with respect to required rehabilitation steps, after affording necessary opportunity of hearing.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed; petitioners not granted relief; liberty to approach the National Highways Authority of India for rehabilitation measures under RFCTLARR Act after due process.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Naseeda w/o Sakkir
E.K. Varghese
Noordeem P.K
Abdul Latheef A.T

Respondents

Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Transport, New Delhi-110 001
The District Collector, Thrissur-680 003
The Special Deputy Tahsildar (LA) NH 17, Kodungallur-680 664
Orumanayoor Grama Panchayath, Thrissur District represented by its Secretary, PIN-680 512
Deputy Collector, Competent Authority (LA) N.H.66, Kodungalloor-680 664
National Highways Authority of India represented by its Chairman, Dwaraka, New Delhi-110075

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Ramesh Chander (Sr.)
• Sri Balu Tom
• Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt.C.G.Preetha, CGC Government Pleader
• P. Ramachandran
• Sri I. Sheela Devi
• Sri Ashwin Sethumadhavan

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, residents of Orumanayoor Panchayat in Thrissur District, approached this Court challenging the National Highway Authority of India’s proposal to widen National Highway 66 (formerly NH 17). They alleged the alignment fixed by NHAI was confutative and skewed in favor of vested interests because it would acquire land only from one side of the existing highway, leaving the opposite flank untouched. They also pointed to a drinking water well on their property—the sole source of potable water in the area—and warned that construction along the current alignment would destroy this well. On that basis, they urged that lands in the area should not be physically acquired and that an elevated highway should be considered as an alternative. The respondents resisted, contending that the alignment fixed by NHAI was finalized after careful study of topography and relevant inputs, and that judicial tinkering with such a decision would be improper. They also asserted that rehabilitation measures under the RFCTLARR Act would address any harm to water sources. The Court, applying settled doctrine that its role is not to re-mould fixed alignments, rejected the petition’s central premise. It declined to issue affirmative declarations concerning the water source or to direct elevation of the highway, dismissed the petition, but allowed the petitioners liberty to pursue rehabilitation options with the competent NHAI authority after due process.

Provisions of Law Cited

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Court will not ordinarily interfere with the policy decision fixed by a competent authority
Doctrine of finality of administrative decision regarding alignment fixed by competent authority
Non-interference doctrine in policy decisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the NHAI alignment is confutative and benefits vested interests, as it would acquire land only from one side of the existing highway, endangering a drinking water well on their property. They urged that lands in the area should not be physically acquired and that an elevated highway be considered as an alternative to preserve water sources.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the alignment has been fixed after due consideration of topography and inputs, and cannot be modified by judicial intervention. They asserted that the widening would be carried out in the most effective manner, and that any water-related concerns would be addressed through rehabilitation measures under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013; the elevated highway proposal is infeasible given topography.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India v. Kushala Shetty	[(2011) 12 SCC 69]	Positive	Cited as a controlling authority for the proposition that the alignment fixed by the competent authority cannot be tinkered with by judicial intervention.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

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 Naseeda 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 1[ST] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 NASEEDA W/O. SAKKIR, KULANGARAKATH KANANPPILLY HOUSE,MUTHAMMAVU,ORUMANAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 2 E.K.VARGHESE,AGED 82 YEARS, S/O. KOCHAPPU, CARMALALAYAM,MUTHAMMAVU,ORUMANAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 3 NOORDEEN P.K AGED 72 YEARS, S/O. BEERAN, PUTHIYAVEETTIL KARAYIL HOUSE, MUTHAMMAVU,ORUMANAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 4 ABDUL LATHEEF A.T. AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. HYDROSSKUTTY, PERUMPADY,MUTHAMMAVU CENTRE,ORUMANAYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SRI.BALU TOM SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT,NEW DELHI-110 001 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR-680 003 3 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (LA) N.H.17,KODUNGALLUR-680 664 4 ORUMANAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-680 512 5 DEPUTY COLLECTGOR, COMPETENT AUTHORITY (LA) **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **2** N.H.66, KODUNGALLOOR-680 664 6 NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DWARAKA, NEWDELHI-110075 (IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 06/08/18 IN I.A.NO.14082/18) BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.PREETHA, CGC GOVERNMENT PLEADER P.RAMACHANDRAN SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are stated to be the residents of Orumanayoor Panchayat in Thrissur District, have approached this Court making several allegations and averments against the proposal of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) for widening the National Highway No.66 (former National Highway No.17). 2. According to the petitioners, the alignment now settled by the NHAI is confutative and intended to help certain vested interests because it acquires land only from one side of the present highway, while the other side is left untouched. They further say that there is a drinking water well in their property, which is the only source of portable water in the area and that if the construction is allowed to take place through the present alignment, the same will have to be demolished and destroyed. 3. The petitioners, therefore, suggest that at least in the area where their properties are situated, lands be directed not to be physically acquired and that an elevated Highway be ordered to **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **4** be considered by the competent Authority. 4. I have heard Sri.Ramesh Chander – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Balu Tom; Smt.Sheela Devi.I – learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI; Sri.P.Ramachandran appearing on behalf of the 4[th] respondent – Orumanayoor Grama Panchayat and Smt.C.G.Preetha – learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent Union of India. 5. The afore contentions of the petitioners, as argued by their Senior Counsel – Sri.Remesh Chander, were vehemently refuted by Smt.Sheela Devi.I – learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, predicating that it will not be within the jurisdiction of this Court to direct modification of the alignment already fixed by the competent Authority and she added that this is more so because said alignment has been finalised after considering all relevant aspects and after taking note of the topographical peculiarities of the area concerned. She then submitted that, as regards the allegations of the petitioners regarding acquisition of the properties on one side of the existing National Highway is **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **5** concerned, same is not fully correct and that in any event of the matter, the alignment was made not to save any particular holding, but to ensure that widening was done in the most effective manner, which may or may not entail the acquisition of properties from one side of the existing Highway or both. She alleged that the afore assertions have been made by the petitioners only to save their property; and that it has been well settled, by a catena of judgments of this Court and also that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that the alignment fixed by the competent Authority cannot be tinkered with, in any manner, through judicial proceedings and she relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty**_ [(2011) 12 SCC 69] in substantiation. 6. As regards the drinking water well is concerned, Smt.Sheela Devi.I assured that sufficient reparatory measures and rehabilitation steps will be taken by the NHAI appropriately under the provisions of Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **6** Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 7. Smt.C.G. Preetha – learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1[st] respondent, affirmed the submissions of Smt.Sheela Devi.I as afore and argued that none of the grounds urged by the petitioners in this writ petition would warrant interference from this Court. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed. 8. However, contrary to the afore, Sri.P.Ramachandran – learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat, took the stand that the allegations of the petitioners are correct, particularly with respect to the drinking water problem faced in the locality. He stated that if the NHAI is able to construct the National Highway without, in any manner, touching the drinking water sources in the Panchayat, it would be the better way of handling the issue, rather than destroying the same. 9. When I consider the afore dialectical contentions of the parties, the fact remains, as rightly argued by Smt.Sheela **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **7** Devi.I, that it would not be within the province of this Court to involve in the alignment now proposed by the competent Authority because, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Kushala Shetty (supra)**_ , it has been finalised after a lot of thought and after careful consideration of the relevant and imperative inputs. It would not be, therefore, within the competence of this Court, which is not an expert, to sit in judgment over the same. I am, therefore, of the view that such contentions cannot find favour of this Court. 10. As regards suggestions of an elevated Highway is concerned, this Court is again jurisdictionally prohibited from considering it for the same reasons as above, since it is the specific stand of the NHAI that such a construction is not possible, going by the topography involved. 11. Finally, as regards the drinking water source is concerned, even though there may be some force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel – Sri.Remesh Chander, I am afraid that this Court cannot pass affirmative declarations in **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **8** favour of the petitioners, since, going by the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, it is for the NHAI to take sufficient rehabilitation steps in this regard in terms of Schedules 1, 2 and 3 thereof. In the afore circumstances, I close this writ petition, without acceding to any of the requests of the petitioners; however, leaving them full liberty to approach the competent Authority of the NHAI appropriately with respect to the rehabilitation steps that are required, particularly as to the drinking water requirements in the area; in which event, said Authority will act in terms of law, after affording necessary opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as also to the Panchayat and such other affected persons. **Sd/-** ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** SAS/01/09/2021 **WP(C) NO. 25492 OF 2018** **9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25492/2018** |PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |EXHIBIT P1|PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED| ||08.06.2018| |EXHIBIT P2|PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PLAN IN ORUMANAYOOR| ||VILLAGE| |EXHIBIT P3|PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED| ||23.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT| |EXHIBIT P4|PHOTOSTAT COPY 9F THE CIRCULAR DATED| ||25.02.2014| |EXHIBIT P5|PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED| ||12.05.2015| |EXHIBIT P6|PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY| ||THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT| ||DATED 16.07.2018| |EXHIBIT P7|PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY| ||THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT| ||DATED 10.07.2018| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:|| |EXHIBIT R4A|THE ORDER NO.A2-139/18(443) DATED| ||10.07.2018| |EXHIBIT R4B|THE ORDER NO.A2-139/18(577) DATED| ||11/07/2018|