RadhaKrishnan V. D. v Union of India (WP(C).26902/2018 & connected matters)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.26902 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **RADHAKRISHNAN.V.D., VAKKAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 515.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIAT BUILDING, NEW DELHI, RASINA HILLS, PIN - 110 001.** - **2 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110 001.** - **3 THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, G 5 & 6, SECTOR -10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI - 110 075.** - **4 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SRI.TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, DP 34, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI.** - **5 THE NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU), REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, NO.8/1187, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678 007.** - **6 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE NH-17 (KUTTIPPURAM - EDAPPALLAY), KODUNGALLUR P.O., PIN - 686 664.** - **7 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 2** **8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD., KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA - 680 003.** **BY ADVS. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, A.C.VIDYA SMT.R.ASHALATHA VARMA M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI SRI.B.G.BIDAN CHANDRAN** STANDING COUNSEL SRI.I.SHEELADEVI **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26198/2018, WP(C).29477/2018, WP(C).29625/2018 & W.P.(C) 26902/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 3** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 26198 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 RATNAPRABHA, AGED 48, W/O.T.P.THILAKAN, CHITHIRA, CHELARI, THENHIPALAM.P.O, MALAPPURAM-673636.** - **2 T.P.THILAKAN, AGED 53, CHITHIRA, CHELARI, THENHIPALAM.P.O, MALAPPURAM-673636.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE SECRATARIAT BUILDING, NEW DELHI, RASINA HILLS, PIN-110001.** - **2 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT BHAWAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001.** - **3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** - **4 THE NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT(PIU), REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HOUSE NO.2/2175-B, KRISHNAKRIPA, AISWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION.P.O, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.** - **5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 4** **6 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAYS-66 KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN-673636.** - **7 THE THENHIPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THENHIPALAM.P.O, PIN-673636.** **BY ADVS. SMT.MAHESWARY.G., CGC SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.A.C.VIDYA M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY SMT.MAHESWARY.G. CGC SMT.I SHEELADEVI, SC,** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).29426/2018, WP(C).29477/2018, WP(C).26902/2018, WP(C).29625/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 5** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.29477 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **ACHUTHAN VAIDYAR, S/O.VAKKAYIL KRISHNAN,AGED 84, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYOOR P.O, CHAVAKKAD680515.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL**| |---|---| ||**SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROADS & TRANSPORT, THE**| ||**SECRETARIAT BUILDING, NEW DELHI, RASINA HILLS-**| ||**110001.**| |**2**|**THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT**| ||**AND HIGH WAYS, NEW DELHI, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**TRANSPORT BHAWAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DLEHI-**| ||**110001.**| |**3**|**THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP.BY**| ||**ITS CHAIRMAN, G 5 AND 6, SECTOR-10,DWARAKA, NEW**| ||**DLEHI-110075.**| |**4**|**NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, REP.BY ITS**| ||**REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SRI.TOWER, 3RD FLOOR, DP 34,**| ||**INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI.**| |**5**|**THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THE**| ||**PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT(PIU), REP.BY ITS DEPUTY**| ||**GENERAL MANAGER, NO.8/1187, ARUMUGHAN COLONY,**| ||**CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, KERALA-678007.**| **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 6** - **6 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE NH-17 (KUTTIPPURAMEDAPPALLY), KODUNGALLUR P.O, PIN-680664.** - **7 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001** - **8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA-680003.** **BY ADVS.** **SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.A.C.VIDYA M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI THOMAS ANTONY** SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, STANDING COUNSEL **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26902/2018, WP(C).29625/2018, WP(C).26198/2018 AND W.P.(C) 29426/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 7** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 29625 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SALAFI MASJID, CHELARI P.O, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673636, REPRESENTED BY ITS MUTHAWALLY, MR.P.M.SHARAFUDHEEN, ZEPHYR HOUSE, P.O, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DT., PIN-676636.** - **2 P.M.SUBAIDA, D/O. ALIKKUTTY HAJI, ZEPHYR HOUSE, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DT., PIN-673636.** - **3 P.M.BEEPPATHUMMA, W/O K.KUTTYALI, ZEPHYR HOUSE, THENHIPALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DT., PIN-673636.** - **BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIAT BUILDING, NEW DELHI, RASINA HILLS, PIN-110001.** - **2 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT BHAWAN-1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001.** - **3 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 8** **4 THE NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU), REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER, HOUSE NO.2/2175-B, KRISHNAKRIPA, AISWARYA ROAD, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.** - **5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.** - **6 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY-66, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676501.** - **7 THE THENHIPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THENHIPALAM P.O.PIN673636.** **BY ADVS. SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.A.C.VIDYA SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI SRI.H.GOPAKUMAR, CGC SHRI.PRADEEP BABU P.D.** SMT.I.SHEELADEVI **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).29477/2018, WP(C).26902/2018, WP(C).26198/2018, W.P.(C) NO.29426/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 9** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941 WP(C).No. 29426 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SREE RANJ, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.SREENIVASAN VAKKAYIL, VAKKAYIL, EDAKKAZHIYOOR P.O., PIN- 680 515.** **BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN** |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**| |---|---| |**1**|**THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL**| ||**SECRETARY, THE SECRETARIAT BUILDING, NEW DELHI,**| ||**RASINA HILLS, PIN- 110001.**| |**2**|**THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA**| ||**MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGH WAYS, NEW**| ||**DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT**| ||**BHAWAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI, PIN-**| ||**110001.**| |**3**|**THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, G 5 AND 6, SECTOR-**| ||**10, DWARKA, NEW DELHI- 110 075.**| |**4**|**NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER, REGIONAL**| ||**OFFICE-THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, SRI TOWER, 3RD FLOOR,**| ||**DP 34, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, GUINDY, CHENNAI.**| |**5**|**THE NATIIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU),**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,**| ||**NO.8/1187, ARUMUGHAN COLONY, CHANDRANAGAR,**| ||**PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN- 678007.**| **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 10** - **6 THE SPEICAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) AND THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF THE NH17(KUTTIPPURAM-EDAPPALLY), KODUNGALLUR P.O., PIN 680664.** - **7 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** - **8 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA- 680003.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.GIRISH KUMAR.V., CGC SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.A.C.VIDYA M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI** SMT.I.SHEELADEVI, STANDING COUNSEL **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019 ALONG WITH WP(C).29477/2018, WP(C).26902/2018, WP(C).26198/2018, W.P.(C) NO.29625/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 11** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **[ WP(C) 26902/2018, WP(C) 26198/2018 WP(C) 29477/2018, WP(C) 29625/2018,** ## **WP(C) 29426/2018 ]** These bunch of writ petitions are filed challenging acquisition of the land for the purpose of formation of National Highway under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short, the “Act, 1956”). The petitioners in all these writ petitions have raised their objections to the notification. Their objections were considered and, overruling these objections, orders have been passed. These orders are under challenge in these writ petitions. 2. Apart from challenging the orders, the petitioners also seek a declaration that Section 105(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, the “Act 30 of 2013”) is against the purpose of the Act 30 of 2013. This is on the ground that the said exemption violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners as it is discriminatory. **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 12** **==> picture [405 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** cases involved: **==> picture [240 x 17] intentionally omitted <==** Section 3A(1) of Act, 1956, notification was published on 08.06.2018. The petitioner filed an objection on 02.07.2018. Thereafter, hearing the petitioner, the objection was overruled. It is to be noted that the petitioner raised the objection after 21 days of publication of the notification. There is no obligation on the part of the competent authority to hear any objection which was raised after 21 days of publication of the notification. **==> picture [240 x 17] intentionally omitted <==** Section 3A(1) of the Act, 1956, notification was published on 08.06.2018. The petitioner filed objection on 02.07.2018 after 21 days of publication of the notification. That objection was also considered and rejected. **==> picture [249 x 17] intentionally omitted <==** Section 3A(1) of Act, 1956, notification was published on 08.06.2018 as well as on 26.06.2018 in the Mathrubhoomi daily. The petitioner filed **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 13** objection on 03.07.2018. That objection was also considered and rejected. **==> picture [244 x 17] intentionally omitted <==** Section 3A (1) of the Act, 1956, notification was published on 01.03.2018. The petitioner filed objection on 20.03.2018. The objection was also considered and rejected. 3.(v).W.P(C) No.29625/2018 Section 3A(1) notification was published on 01.03.2018. The petitioners filed objection on 21.03.2018. That objection was also considered and rejected **.** 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri.E.Narayanan argued _in extenso_ . According to him, stereotype orders were passed in all these matters by the competent authority. He also argued that none of the objections raised were specifically considered by the competent authority. It is submitted that the objections were overruled in general terms. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners had pointed out the shifting of the alignment and ## **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 14** therefore, the competent authority ought to have considered specifically in the order, in regard to the objection raised in the alignment. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the notification does not meet the requirement of Section 3A(1) of the Act, 1956 regarding specification of the land and, therefore, it has to be struck down. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in **Competent Authority v.Barangore Jute Factory and others [2006 1 RLW (SC) 388]** to buttress his argument that the acquisition notification without details is bad in law and liable to be struck down. According to him, such notification issued should be appended with a plan showing the actual extent of land required to be acquired from the holder of the land. The learned counsel finally argued that on account of operation of Section 105(1) of the Act 30 of 2013, the provisions contained in Chapter 2 therein are not made applicable. It is argued that assessment of social impact as contemplated in Chapter 2 of the Act 30 of **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 15** 2013, will give a brief account of the impact of the acquisition on the family members in that area. It is submitted that such a social impact study essentially protects the fundamental rights of a citizen. Thus, it is argued that exclusion of the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 by virtue of the operation of Section 105 of Act 30 of 2013 is unconstitutional in the light of the nature of the protection accorded to the citizen. 5. In response to the above argument, learned Standing Counsel for the National Highway Authority submitted that the alignment is fixed in a scientific manner based on the input gathered by the consultant. It is further submitted that after fixing the alignment by the National Highway Authority, it was placed before the State Government for recommendation and approval. It is only after the approval of the State Government, the notification was issued. It is also submitted that the competent authority cannot decide upon the alignment and therefore, they cannot consider any such objection in regard to the alignment. The **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 16** learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Union of India v. Kushala Shetty [(2011) 12 SCC 69** ], wherein the Apex Court, after adverting to the procedure for acquisition for the National Highway, held in paragraph-24 as follows: “NHAI is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in field of development and maintenance of national highways. Courts on other hand are not equipped to decide viability and feasibility of particular project and whether particular alignment would subserve larger public interest. Thus, scope of judicial review is limited in such a situation. Court can nullify acquisition of land in rarest of rare cases if it is found ex facie contrary to law or tainted due to _mala fides._ In instant case neither was any violation of mandate of the 1956 Act established nor was charge of malice proved. Hence, impugned order set aside and acquisition restored”. 6. In regard to the challenge to Section 105(1) on exclusion of the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 applicable to the National Highways Act and the other Acts, the learned Central Government **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 17** Counsel as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India submit that the provisions of the Act 30 of 2013 cannot be questioned. It is submitted that merely because different procedures have been set out for the acquisition itself will not give rise to the cause of action to the citizen to question the legality of a statutory provision. The learned counsel further pointed out to the eminent domain power of the State and argued that fair procedure laid down for acquisition varies in different enactments and differences in procedure cannot be a ground to challenge the validity of an enactment. 7. The notification issued under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 should contain brief description of the land to be acquired. In the notification itself it is stated that the plan is available with the office and any interested persons can verify from the office. In such such circumstances, it is not necessary plan also should be published along with the notification. The petitioner has no case that the plan was not available with the office and ## **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 18** the plan does not contain any description of the land to be acquired. Therefore, this argument will have to be rejected. 8. Non-consideration of the objections perhaps have to be answered in the light of the nature of the enquiry to be conducted under Section 3C of the Act, 1956. The Apex Court judgment in **Competent** ## **Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory [2006 KHC 156]** observed that objection under Section 3C(1) of the Act, 1956 is limited and the objection can be only to the use of land under acquisition for the purpose other than those under Section 3A(1). In **Dr** . **Kushala** **Shetty'** s case ( _supra)_ , the Apex Court referred to the narrow limit of judicial review. It was observed that the National Highway Authority is an expert body in the field of development of Highway and therefore, no authority can interfere with the alignment fixed by such authority. 9. In the realm of administrative law, wisdom of administrative authority cannot be interfered except on the parameters recognized by law. Therefore, the Court cannot direct the National **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 19** Highway Authority or the competent authority to consider the objection regarding alignment unless the Court forms an opinion that such alignment was fixed without application of mind. In the light of the above proposition of law, the petitioners' objection requires no consideration at all. Therefore, the argument is that stereotype orders were issued by the competent authority, requires no consideration as the petitioners have not raised any worth objection required for meritorious consideration under Section 3C. 10. In regard to the challenge made by the petitioners, Section 105(1) of the Act 30 of 2013, exempting the Act, 1956 from the purview of the Act 30 of 2013, I must say that the challenge must fail. Even in the absence of the above provisions in the Act 30 of 2013, provisions under the Act 30 of 2013 would have no application for acquisition under the Act, 1956. The discriminatory nature of the statutory provision will have to be culled out from the domain of the statute. This Court held in ## **Vinodkumar v. Special Deputy Collector [2018 (4) KLT** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 20** ## **1036]** at para 24 as follows: 24. 'Equality' does not mean unanimity or uniformity. The demand of unanimity may lead to inconceivable conflict in achieving objects on the purport of different enactments. Unanimity or uniformity is not the principle on which egalitarian values is found, it is rational choice on which action is co-related and falls for consideration to determine the legitimacy of an action under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If two different procedures under a different enactment for compensation on acquisition of land regulate provisions to fulfil the conditions to restore loss on a credential perspective, the court shall not frown on such statutory provisions for being distinct with each other. Two different procedures if produce the desired outcome and guarantee compensation due, the difference in provision will not make the provisions as discriminatory. The constitutional courts in such situation need to examine only the perfectness of such procedure to produce desired outcome while deciding the validity of such statutory provision. When a challenge is made to statutory provision on the ground of discriminatory procedure, the focus of the constitutional court is on the outcome of procedures and not on the **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 21** differences in such procedure. The element of justice would embrace equality as well. Therefore, the process of enquiry is to determine whether the procedure adopted would yield just result or not. If the procedure for awarding compensation for land acquisition under the special enactment is fair and the outcome would protect the interest of the land owner, merely because it is different from general enactment, it will not make special enactment as void or discriminatory.” In the light of the above, this Court cannot say that exclusion of National Highway Authority under Section 105(1) of the Act 30 of 2013 is discriminatory, therefore, this challenge must fail. In the light of the discussions as above, the writ petition is dismissed. ## **Sd/-** ## **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **JUDGE** ln **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 22** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26902/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED BEARING NUMBER 464/2004 OF ANDATHODE SRO WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT. P2: GAZETTE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.S.O.2364(E) DATED 08/06/2018 AS PUBLISHED IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 26/06/2018. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/07/2018 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(C) OF THE NH ACT.** **EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER 13/6/2009-INF, DATED THE 08/10/2013. EXT.P6: DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER THE ACT 30 OF 2013 DURING STAGE I AND STAGE II.** ## RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PLAN. EXT.R6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2/1163/2018 DATED 08.11.2018 //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 23** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26198/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.** - **EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE D AND O LICENSE DATED 13.04.18 ISSUED FROM THE THENHIPALAM PANCHAYATH TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.** - **EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 1-32018 BEARING NO.SO.934(E)..** - **EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT.20.3.18 ISSUED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT CALLING THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR HEARING.** **EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF ORAL EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSIGNMENT RECEIPT DT.20.04.18 ISSUED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURIERS FOR COURIERING EXHIBIT P8. EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 12.07.18 PASSED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT ON EXHIBIT P5 OBJECTION. EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN TO THE SECOND PETITIONER ON AN APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT. EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AS PER THE SECTION 3 A NOTIFICATION. EXT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER 13/6/2009-INF, DATED THE 27TH MARCH, 2012. EXT P14 DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER ACT 30 OF 2013 DURING STAGE I AND STAGE II OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND.** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 24** |**EXT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ALL PARTY MEETING**| |---|---| ||**HELD ON 11-04.18 AT THE PRESIDENCY SHIP OF THE**| ||**MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS.**| |**EXT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF AN INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.05.18 IN**| ||**W.P(C)NO.15620/18 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE**| ||**COURT.**| |**EXT P17**|TRUE COPY OF REVISED PLAN PREPARED BY THE PETITIONER.| |EXT.P18|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED| ||30.07.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND| ||HIGHWAYS.| ## RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PLAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 25** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29477/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED BEARING NO.1365/1991. EXHIBIT P2 RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.S.O.2364(E) DATED 08.6.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.7.2018 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(C) OF THE NH ACT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.13/6/2009-INF, DATED THE 8TH OCTOBER, 2013.** - **EXHIBIT P6 RELEVANT PORTION OF DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER THE ACT 30 OF 2013 DURING STAGE I AND STAGE II.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.4.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R6(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION ON 03.07.2018. EXHIBIT R6(B): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06.07.2018. EXHIBIT R6(C): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E2/1365/18 DATED 08.11.2018. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 26** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29426/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED BEARING NUMBER 1670/2001 OF ANDATHODE SRO.** **EXHIBIT P2 RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.S.O.2364(E) DATED 08.06.2018.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 3(C) OF THE NH ACT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER 13.06.2009-INF, DATED 08.10.2013.** **EXHIBIT P6 DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER THE ACT 30 OF 2013 DURING STAGE I AND STAGE II.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.04.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.** ## RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R5(A) :TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PLAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 27** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29625/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 1.3.2018 BEARING NO SO.934(E).** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.3.18 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.3.18 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER BEFORE THE SIXTH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.3.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE FIRST PETITIONER AS RECORDED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE ALL PARTY MEETING HELD ON 11.4.18 AT THE PRESIDENCY SHIP OF THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.18 PASSED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT IN THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.18 PASSED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT IN THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.18 PASSED B Y THE SIXTH RESPONDENT IN THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER.** **WP(C).No.26902/2018 & Conn.cases 28** **EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NUMBER 13.6.2009-INF, DATED THE 8TH OCTOBER 2013.** **EXHIBIT P14 DIAGRAM SHOWING THE VARIOUS PROCEDURES ADOPTED UNDER ACT 30 OF 2013 DURING STAGE 1 AND STAGE11 OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND.** RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT R6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PETITIONER'S OBJECTION. EXHIBIT R6(B)` TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND PETITIONER'S OBJECTION. EXHIBIT R6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD PETITIONER'S OBJECTION. EXHIBIT R6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.03.2018 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.03.2018 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R6(F) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 27.03.2018 ISSUED TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R6(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R6(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R6(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2018 ISSUED TO THE THIRD PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY // P.A.TO JUDGE