W.P.(C) Nos. 26874/2018; 26171/2018; 30313/2018; 30336/2018; 31211/2018; 27727/2018, In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 26874 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**KOMALAVALLY .O.K, AGED 84 YEARS,**| |---|---| ||**W/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN,THACHAPPULLY HOUSE,**| ||**VATANAPPILLY P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 619.**| |**2**|**PRABHATH, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. ARAVINDAKSHAN,**| ||**THACHAPPULLY HOUSE, VATANAPPILLY P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 619.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**| |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|| |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,**| ||**MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT ANDHIGHWAYS,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DLEHI - 110 001.**| |**2**|**PROJECT MANAGER**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 001.**| |**3**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR**| ||**(LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,OFFICE OF NH-17**| ||**(KUTTIPURAM - EDAPPALLY),KODUNGALLUR P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY**| |**OTHER PRESENT**<br>**:**|| ||**SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR,SGC FOR R1, SRI.JESTIN**| ||**MATHEW,GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.THOMAS ANTONY, SC FOR**| ||**NHAI**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26171/2018, WP(C).31211/2018, WP(C).30313/2018, WP(C).30336/2018, & WP(C).27727/2018, THE COURT ON 22.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 26171 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**AMBUJAKSHY, 59 YEARS, THER HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR**| |---|---| ||**VILLAGE,P.O KUNDALIYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**2**|**PRABHAKARANAGED 85 YEARS SO. MAKOTHA NEDUMATTUMEL**| ||**HOUSE, ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, P.O KUNDALIYUR,**| ||**CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**3**|**AJAYAN AJAYAGOSH AGED 47 YEARS SO. PANGAJAKSHAN,**| ||**CHANDRASSERY HOUSE,ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, P.O**| ||**KUNDALIYUR,CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**ROY, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. PANKAJAKSHAN,**| ||**CHANDRASSERY HOUSE,ENGANDIYUR VILLAGE, P.O**| ||**KUNDALIYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**| |**DENT**|**/S**<br>**:**| |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF ROAD**| ||**TRANSPORT & HIGHWAYS,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 110 001**| |**2**|**PROJECT DIRECTOR**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI 110 001**| |**3**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORL.A COMPETENT AUTHORITY**| ||**OFFICE OF NH-17 (KUTTIPURAM-EDAPPALLY), KODUNGALLUR**| ||**P.O,THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 664.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR, CGC**| ||**SRI.THOMAS ANTONY**| ||**SRI.KRISHNADAS P.NAIR CGC**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26874/2018, WP(C).31211/2018, WP(C).30313/2018, WP(C).30336/2018, & WP(C).27727/2018, THE COURT ON 22.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::3:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 31211 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **NATTIKA-TRIPRAYAR SAHODARA PARIPALANA YOGAM NATTIKA - 680566, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.K.SREERAMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KUNHIKALAVAN, KUNDAYI HOUSE, POST NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. RAJIT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD**| ||**TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 001.**| |**2**|**PROJECT DIRECTOR,**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEW**| ||**DELHI-110001.**| |**3**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA) AND COMPETENT**| ||**AUTHORITY,**| ||**OFFICE OF NH 17(KUTTIPURAM-**| ||**EDAPPALLY),KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-**| ||**680664.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**MR.SAJAN K.B., CGC**| ||**THOMAS ANTONY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).26874/2018, WP(C).26171/2018, WP(C).30313/2018, WP(C).30336/2018, & WP(C).27727/2018, THE COURT ON 22.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::4:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 30313 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 K.J. CHACKO, AGED 50 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KAKKASSERY HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE, DESOM P.O., ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **2 KAYYUNNY, AGED 70 YEARS W/O KADHAR,PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE, DESOM P.O., ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **3 A.MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 85 YEARS S/O ABDU,ARAKKALHOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE, DESOM P.O., ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **4 P.M.AMEER, AGED 44 YEARS S/O ABDULLA,ARAKKAL HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE, DESOM P.O., ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** - **5 E.K.SEBASTIAN, AGED 75 YEARS S/O KOCHAPPU,EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE, DESOM P.O., ORUMANAYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** ::5:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 |**6**|**ABDUL KADER, AGED 69 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**S/O RAYAMMARAKKAR VEETIL HOUSE,**| ||**ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE,DESAM,MOONAMKELLU**| ||**P.O.ORUMANAYUR,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**7**|**RAZAK, AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**S/O KUNJU MOHAMMED,NJATTUKETTY**| ||**HOUSE,ORUMANAYUR VILLAGE,DESAM,**| ||**MOONAMKELLU,P.O.ORUMANAYUR,CHAVAKKAD**| ||**TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**| |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|| |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| ||**REP. BY SECRETARY,**| ||**MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI-110 001.**| |**2**|**PROJECT DIRECTOR,**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI 110001**| |**3**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,**| ||**(LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY,OFFICE OF NH-17**| ||**(KUTTIPURAM-EDAPPALLY),KODUNGALLUR**| ||**P.O.THRISSUR DISTRICT 680617**| |**4**|**ORUMANAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,P.O.ORUMANAYUR**| ||**VILLAGE DESAM, P.O.ORUMANAYUR,CHAVAKKAD TALUK**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT 680512**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR**| ||**SRI.THOMAS ANTONY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH 26874/2018, WP(C).26171/2018, WP(C).31211/2018, WP(C).30336/2018, & WP(C).27727/2018,, THE COURT ON 22.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::6:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 30336 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**MADHUSOODHANAN V.G., AGED 90 YEARS**| |---|---| ||**VAYAKKATTIL, THRITHALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT**| ||**- 680 619.**| |**2**|**JAYAGOPALAN, AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**VAYAKKATTIL, THRITHALLUR P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 619.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT**| |**DENT/S**|**:**| |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD**| ||**TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.**| |**2**|**PROJECT DIRECTOR,**| ||**NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI.**| |**3**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,(A) AND COMPETENT**| ||**AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NG-17**| ||**(KUTTIURAM-EDAPPALLY),**| ||**KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.**| |**4**|**THE VADANAPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**GOVERNMENT PLEADER**| ||**SRI.THOMAS ANTONY**| ||**ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). 26874/2018, WP(C).26171/2018, WP(C).31211/2018, WP(C).30313/2018, & WP(C).27727/2018, THE COURT ON 22.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::7:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 2ND MAGHA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 27727 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 SARASWATHI BALAN AND OTHERS AGED 67 YEARS** - **NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, AYINIPULLI, THIRUVATHRA P.O, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680516** - **2 N.A.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 1 YEARS** - **NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA P.O., MANATHALA NORTH, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680 506.** - **3 SUKUMARAN.N.T. AGED 1 YEARS** - **NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, AYINIPULLI, CHAVAKKADU P.O.,M THRISSUR-680 506.** - **4 C.A.SIVALINGADAS, AGED 1 YEARS CHENCHERI HOUSE, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680 506.** - **5 C.A.SIDHARTHAN, AGED 1 YEARS CHENCHERI HOUSE, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680 506.** - **6 GIREESH.N.G. AGED 1 YEARS NEDIYEDATH HOUSE, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680 506.** **BY ADV. M.R. NANDAKUMAR** ::8:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS**| |---|---| ||**REP BY ITS SECRETARY,**| ||**MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,**| ||**NEW DELHI-110001**| |**2**|**PROJECT DIRECTOR**| ||**NATIONAL HIGH WAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, NEW**| ||**DELHI-110 001.**| |**3**|**SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,**| ||**(LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17,**| ||**(KUTTIPURAM-EDAPALLY), KONDUNGALLUR P.O.,**| ||**THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 001.**| |**4**|**PROJECT ENGINEER,**| ||**FEEDBACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.14,**| ||**LANGFORD GARDEN, 1ST FLOOR, LANGFORD AVENUE,**| ||**LALBAGH ROAD, (NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE),**| ||**BANGALORE-560 025, INDIA.**| |**5**|**MANATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH**| ||**THIRUVATHRA P.O., CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-68-**| ||**516, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| ||**BY ADV. THOMAS ANTONY**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C). 26874/2018, WP(C).26171/2018, WP(C).31211/2018, 30313/2018 & WP(C).30336/2018, THE COURT ON 22.1.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::9:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ---------------------- W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ---------------------------- Dated this the 22[nd] day of January, 2019. ## **J U D G M E N T** **These petitions mainly challenge the methodology adopted for acquisition of land by the respondents for the expansion of the existing** **NH 17 (now renamed as NH 66) as per the provisions contained in the National Highways Act, 1956, to cater to the requirements of anticipated heavy transportation of goods from Edappally to Kuttipuram. As the matters raised broadly common issues, these cases are disposed on the basis of this common judgment.** **2. The prayers in W.P(C).No.26874/2018 are** **as follows:** _**“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to acquire land on the eastern and western side of the existing National Highway No.66 (previously National Highway 17) equally, in the place where it passes through Vatanappilly Village.**_ _**b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to exclude the property**_ ::10:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 _**of the petitioners from acquisition for the proposal for widening the national highway. c) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Hon'ble court.”**_ **The prayers in other Writ Petitions are also** **broadly similar in nature.** **3. Heard Sri.Rajit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the Writ Petitions, except W.P.(C).No.27727/2018,** **Sri.M.R.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.27727/2018, Sri.Thomas Antony, learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI, appearing for the respondent-Project Director, NHAI, Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent-Union Government and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Deputy Collector/competent authority.** **4. These Writ Petitions have been initiated complaining against the action and methodology adopted by the respondents to expand the existing** ::11:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **NH 66 (previously NH 17). Petitioners would pertinently complain that the present proposal is to acquire the land only on the eastern side of the existing National Highway 66 in violation of the norms and methodology and that instead of acquiring land on both sides of existing National Highway 66 equally, only property on the eastern side of National Highway is proposed to be acquired, etc. W.P.(C).Nos.26874/2018 and 31211/2018 also raise certain other specific factual allegations. It is alleged that in W.P.(C).No.26874/2018 that the present proposal is to take a deviation from the existing National Highway at the place where it touches Vadanappilly and thereafter again bends towards the western side and meets the Highway and the entire change in alignment is to protect the property of a leading business man called M.A.Yousaf Ali. That the respondents have set up the alignment in such a way that the residential** ::12:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **houses and structures of various poor and downtrodden persons are proposed to be acquired. That Lulu Mall/Y Mall in Thriprayar, built by the abovesaid person is proposed to be started and the present alignment brought out by the respondents is in such a way that the proposed widened National Highway will be the eastern boundary of the Lulu Mall/Y Mall constructed by M.A.Yousaf Ali. In fact, the entire alignment made by the respondents is only to ensure that the present commercial venture of the abovesaid person is protected and promoted and that this is not in consonance with the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.** **5. So also it is also alleged in W.P. (C).No.31211/2018 that the only reason for adopting the strange method of alignment is to protect the property of the said Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali, who has built a mall called '** _**Y Mall**_ **' in** ::13:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **Thriprayar and that the entire alignment deviating from the original alignment is done only to save the said '** _**Y Mall**_ **' and provide two sides road access to the said '** _**Y Mall**_ **' on the western side of the present NH 17 and on the eastern side the proposed acquisition made by the respondents and that this is highly arbitrary and unreasonable. Further that '** _**Gurumandiram**_ **' established in the name of Sree Narayana Guru, is also included in the proposed acquisition, while the property of the mosque on the western side is left untouched and that the proposal to acquire land on both sides equally as contemplated earlier is the only way to salvage the situation.** **6. The 2[nd] respondent-NHAI has filed their separate counter/statements in these matters rebutting the abovesaid allegations and contentions raised by the petitioners.** **7. Reference to the prime contention raised in the counter statement of the 2[nd] respondent-** ::14:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **NHAI filed in W.P(C).Nos.26874 & 31211 of 2018 will be apposite. It is stated in para 4 of the counter statement of the 2[nd] respondent-NHAI filed in W.P.(C).No.26874/2018 that the DPR (Detailed Project Report) Consultant has prepared the DPR and submitted the draft alignment, which was submitted before the peoples' representatives in the presence of the District Collector and after obtaining the views of the peoples' representatives some changes have been made in the draft alignment. That after incorporating the changes proposed in the meeting of peoples' representatives, final alignment was submitted by the DPR Consultant, which is also submitted before the Government of Kerala for approval after the District Collector recommended the alignment. Again the alignment was approved by the Government of Kerala by letter No.PWDD3/569/2017-PWD dated 21.2.2018. That Sec.3A(1) notification dated 8.7.2018 issued under the** ::15:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, including the properties of the petitioners was published in the newspaper dated 26.6.2018. That the extent shown in Sec.3A(1) notification as per** **Ext.P-2 will not be the exact area but approximate and the exact area required can only be ascertained by detailed survey under Sec.3B of the National Highways Act, 1956, and that too with the help of the approved alignment. That it is only after Sec.3B survey, the exact extent that is required from each survey number and each person can be determined. Usually, the extent required will be almost as shown in Ext.P-2, but it can also be lesser or larger. If more land is required than notified in Ext.P-2 from the petitioners then the same will be acquired only after the publication of a fresh Sec.3A(1) notification under the National Highways Act for acquiring such additional extent of land required other than what is already notified in Ext.P-2.** ::16:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **8. Further it is very pertinently stated in para 6 of the counter statement that the allegation that the alignment has been made only with the specific intention to cater to the needs of certain influential businessman, who has commercial establishment situated by the side of the National Highway has been denied as incorrect and untrue. That the area where the land of the petitioners are affected, the Highway is being developed as a bypass known as Vadanappilly Bypass having a length of 6.200 Km, starting from Design Ch. 360/900 to Ch.367/100. From Ch.360/9000, the existing two lane highway deviates to the western side and proceeds towards southern side, while the new bypass proceeds further towards southern side parallel to the existing two lane highway on its east and joins the existing two lane highway at Ch.367/100. That before Ch.367/100, the existing two lane highway slowly shifts towards the east from the** ::17:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **west and the new bypass joins the existing two lane highway. That this is the general manner in which bypasses are developed to avoid towns and the bypass will start before the town by deviating from the existing highway and then run parallel to the existing highway and joins it after the town that is avoided by the bypass. It is further stated that the new bypass is almost in a straight line and not in a zig zag manner as alleged by the petitioner. The new bypass is designed to maintain the design speed of 80-100 Kmp and also considering the geometric parameters and radius of curvature in touch with the IRC (Indian Road Congress) code. The details of the survey numbers of the properties of the petitioners, which are included in Sec.3A(1) notification, are also dealt with in the said averments. A copy of the approved alignment showing the land acquisition plan from Design Ch.361/000 to 362/000 has been produced as** ::18:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **Anx.R-2(a). On that basis, the 2[nd] respondent would contend that the bypass is almost in a straight line and that the properties of the petitioners are required for the development of the four lane highway.** **9. Further very pertinently and specifically it is stated in para 7 of the counter statement that the allegations of the petitioners in para 7 of the Writ Petition that the 3[rd] respondent has, in order to protect the property of leading businessman called Sri.M.A.Yousuf Ali, set up the alignment in such a way that residential houses and structures of various poor and downtrodden persons are proposed to be acquired, is incorrect and untrue. It is averred that in Vadanappilly Village, to the knowledge of the 2[nd] respondent, the said M.A.Yousaf Ali, is not owning any property by the side of the existing two lane highway or inside or aside the proposed new four lane Vadanappilly** ::19:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **bypass. It is further pointed out that the 3[rd] respondent is not the authority that prepares the alignment and the 3[rd] respondent is not having any power to design or approve the alignment. Further it is also stated that the company in which the Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali is having interest is constructing a shopping mall by name '** _**Y Mall**_ **' and not Lulu Mall at Thriprayar, which is more that nine kilometers away from the properties of the petitioners. The suggestion that the present alignment is brought out by the respondents in such a way that the proposed widened National Highway will be the eastern boundary of the Lulu Mall constructed by Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali, is denied. It is also stated that the property of Y Mall situated at Ch.371/400 to Ch.371/50 in Sy.No.170/1C of Nattika Village to an approximate extent of 35 cents is being acquired for the Thriprayar bypass. Inside that property to be acquired, there are newly constructed four** ::20:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **storied building which is an important portion of the Y Mall and two other new single storied buildings. That apart, major portions of the car park for the '** _**Y Mall**_ **' is also acquired. By the acquisition, the property of the '** _**Y Mall**_ **' will be divided into two portions, as the new developed four lane highway is passing through the property of the '** _**Y Mall**_ **' cutting it into two independent parts, a western portion and an eastern portion and that after the acquisition it will be difficult to continue the business in the '** _**Y Mall**_ **' as designed at present. That apart, the business group of Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali is having ownership of the former Nattika Mills situated between Ch.369/520 to Ch.370/150 of the existing two lane highway and from that property as per Sec.3A(1) notification an extent of 1.79 acres of land with structures are being acquired for the new four lane highway. Hence it is stated that the entire alignment is made by the respondents** ::21:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **only to ensure that the present commercial venture of Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali is baseless and made without any bonafides. It is not known why the petitioners have not impleaded the said Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali as a party respondent in the Writ Petition even though various allegations have been made as against him as well. Further that the Vadanappally bypass is designed as an almost straight four lane highway as per the IRC Code of Manual in order to maintain a design speed of 80-100 Km/Hr. It is for the above technical reasons, the property of the petitioners 1 & 2 are required for the development of the existing two lane highway into a four lane highway.** **10. It is also stated in para 8 of the counter statement that the 2[nd] respondent has not given any directions to the local Panchayats to refuse building permits on either sides of the existing two lane highway and the allegations in** ::22:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **para 9 of the Writ Petition that the new bypass curves towards the west and joins the existing National Highway is not true or correct. It is stated that the existing National Highway that slants towards east at the end portion of the Vadanappally bypass and joins the new bypass. It is also further stated that it is not true that the National Highway authorities had proposed a route few years back along the western side of the existing two lane highway.** **11. More particularly, it is also stated in para 9 of the counter statement that even though the land is being acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioners and similarly affected persons will be given compensation under the newly enacted Act, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as amended. Hence it is also stated that there is no hostile** ::23:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **discrimination meted out to the petitioners in comparison to those, whose properties are acquired under the new 2013 Act. That none of the fundamental rights or constitutional rights of the petitioners are in any manner violated by the impugned acquisition process, etc.** **12. So also, detailed averments are made out in the counter statement filed in W.P(C).No.31211/2018 as regard the allegations of favoritism shown to the properties of the abovesaid Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali. The following averments have been made in para 10 of the said counter statement of the respondent-NHAI in W.P. (C).No.31211/2018, which read as follows:** _“10. The allegation in paragraph thirteen of the writ petition that the only reason for the alignment made by the respondents is to protect the property of a very influential business man called Yoosaf Ali who has built a Mall called Y Mall in Thriprayar is not true or correct. So also the allegation that the deviation to the east is to provide two sides road access to the Y Mall is not true or correct. It is understood that the company in which Mr.M.A.Yoosaf Ali is having interest is constructing a shopping mall by name Y Mall, at Thriprayar. It is not true or correct to state that the present alignment is brought out by the respondent is in such a way that the proposed widened National Highway will be the eastern boundary of the Y Mall constructed by Mr.M.A.Yoosaf_ ::24:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 _Ali. The property of Y Mall situated at Ch.371/400 to Ch.371/500 in Sy.No.170/1C of Nattika Village to an approximate extent of 35 cents is being acquired for the Thriprayar bypass. In side that property to be acquired there are the newly constructed four storied building which is an important portion of the Y Mall and two other new single stories buildings. That apart major portion of the car park for the Y Mall is also acquired. By the acquisition, the property of the Y Mall will be divided into two portions, as the new developed four lane highway is passing through the property of the Y Mall cutting it into two independent parts, a western portion and an eastern portion. After the acquisition it will be difficult to continue the business for which the Y Mall as designed at present. That apart the business group of Mr.M.A.Yoosaf Ali is having ownership of the former Nattika Mills situated between Ch.369/520 to Ch.370/150 of the existing two lane highway on its western side and form that property as per the Sec.3A(1) notification an extend of 1 Acres 79 cents of land with structures are being acquired for the new four lane highway. Therefore the allegation that the entire alignment is made by the respondents only to ensure that the present commercial venture of Mr.M.A.Yoosaf ali is protected and promoted is baseless and made without any bonafides. The petitioner due to reasons best known to it has not made the said Mr.M.A.Yoosaf Ali a party to this writ petition. As already stated the Thriprayar bypass is designed as an almost straight four lane highway as per the IRC Code of Manual in order to maintain a design speed of 80100 Km/Hr and to avoid the Thriprayar Town. For the above stated technical reason the property of the petitioner is required for the development of the existing two lane highway into a four lane highway.”_ **13. Further it is also stated in para 11 of** **the counter statement of the respondent-NHAI that the petitioner in W.P(C).No.31211/2018, in its objections, produced as Ext.P-5, has not stated any allegations regarding the influence of Sri.M.A.Yousaf Ali or that the project is against** ::25:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **the public policy or that there is malafides. The main objection raised by the petitioner is that the property of the petitioner is to be avoided since it is the place where Sree Narayana Guru devotees pray and that the demolition of the shop rooms will affect the livelihood of four poor families. That the petitioner has not objected to the project but only that the project should avoid the property of the petitioner. That the 3[rd] respondent-competent authority has rightly rejected the objections of the petitioner. That in the Writ Petition, the petitioner is raising new objections without any bonafides or basis, to somehow avoid its property from acquisition. That the averments in para 14 of the Writ Petition are not fully correct. Wherever it is possible, the land will be acquired on either sides of the existing highway. But to correct the geometric defects that are there in the existing highway more land will be** ::26:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **acquired only from one side of the highway, or more from one side and less from the opposite side. Further it is stated that it is true that the stretch of Vadanappilly to Talikulam is the Vadanappally bypass and in that area the existing two lane highway is avoided. That it is not true to state that the present proposal is to notify the land only on the east of the existing highway. As already stated, the lands on either side of the existing highway are used for the development of the highway and where there are bypasses the entire existing highway at those places are avoided. It is also stated in para 9 of the counter statement that the allegation of the petitioner in para 12 of the Writ Petition that the reason for excluding the land on the western side is to avoid a mosque is incorrect and untrue. That the land of the petitioner on the east of the existing highway is required for the development of the highway as** ::27:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **it is situated at the starting point of the Thriprayar bypass. The new National Highway 66 is designed based on proper guidelines of the IRC code and is technically feasible, reducing the travelling time and saving the highly built-up towns.** **14. Averments are also made regarding the applicability of the compensation benefits envisaged under the New 2013 Act as amended even though the petitioner's properties are acquired under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, etc. Similar averments are also made in the counter statement of respondent-NHAI filed in other Writ Petitions.** **15. After having heard all the parties concerned in extenso and after going through the pleadings and materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that the factual aspects stated by the 2[nd] respondentNHAI in the Writ Petition have not been** ::28:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **factually rebutted or controverted by the petitioners. The allegations of malafides projected herein does not appear to be in tune with the actual factual realities. Moreover, the persons against whom allegations or malafides are raised are not even made as parties in these Writ petitions. In view of the facts and circumstances disclosed in this petition, more particularly, the pleadings and materials on record placed by the respondent-NHAI, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not successfully made out cogent grounds for warranting the invocation of public law remedy of judicial review so as to interdict the land acquisition proceedings in these cases. The Apex Court in the dictum laid down in the case in** _**Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory**_ **, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 477 = 2006 KHC 156, has held that the right to raise objections conferred by Sec.3C(1) of the National Highways** ::29:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **Act, 1956, is extremely limited in character and that it is not for the writ court to decide on the alignment for acquisition since such alignment is to be fixed after due scientific and technical studies. So also, it has been held by the Apex Court in a series of cases as in** _**State of Punjab & anr. v. Gurdial Singh & ors**_ **., reported in (1980) 2 SCC 471 and** _**Shukla V.S & ors., v. NHAI & ors**_ **, reported in 3013 KHC 2619, that a writ court exercising public law remedy of Judicial review may not be justified in considering the feasibility of alternative elements in the absence of any established plea of manifest malafides etc. It has also been held in the judgment of Apex Court in** _**UOI v. Kushala Shetty & Ors.,**_ **reported in (2011) 12 SCC 69, that a writ court cannot decide upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project unless it is ex-facie found to be contrary to law or is tainted due to palpable malafide etc.** ::30:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **16. In the light of the above well settled legal position and in view of the indisputable facts and circumstances emerging in this case, this Court is of the view that it is not right and proper for this Court to invoke the extraordinary remedy of judicial review to interdict the impugned land acquisition proceedings in this case. Moreover the 2[nd] respondent NHAI has clearly stated in their pleadings that though the impugned land acquisition proceedings have been set in motion under the National Highways Act, 1956, the petitioners and other similar persons affected by the said acquisition proceedings will be given compensation under the new enactment of 2013, viz, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as amended. So the petitioners cannot urge that any discrimination is shown to them who are subjected to the** ::31:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 **acquisition under the National Highway Act, 1956, vis-a-vis, acquisition under the 2013 Act, etc. In the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the Writ Petitions fail and accordingly the same will stand dismissed.** Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::32:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26874/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEUIPT REMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08/07/2018 BROUGHT OUT BY THE IST RESPODENT IN THE NEWS PAPERS** **EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF VATANAPPILLY EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE** ::33:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26171/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED. 08-07-2018 BROUGHT OUT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NEWS PAPERS** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF ENGANDIYUR AREA EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FIELD BY THE 3RD PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIOENR EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER.** ::34:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31211/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE SAID SALE DEED DOC.NO,403/1945** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 02.1.2014 BROUGHT OUT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NEWS PAPERS.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF NATTIKA AREA WHERE THE SAME PASSES THROUGH THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** ::35:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30313/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8.7.2018 BROUGHT OUT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NEWS PAPERS.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF OMMANAYOOR AREA.** **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF ORUMANAYOOR AREA.** ::36:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30336/2018** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 26/6/2018 BROUGHT OUT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE NEWS PAPERS** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF ENGANDIYUR AREA IN THE YEAR OF 2013 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF ENGANDIYUR AREA IN THE YEAR OF 2018** ::37:: W.P(C).Nos.26874, 31211, 26171, 30313, 30336 & 27727 Of 2018 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27727/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.1696716 DATED 12.06.2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.1583316 DATED 24.04.2018 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0219937 DATED 07.08.2018 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0395548 DATED 29.08.2018 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.1702337 DATED 10.05.2018 OF THE 5TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.7098450 DATED 16.08.2017 OF THE 6TH PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 08.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETH ISSUED BY THE WILBERSMITH ASSOCIATES, BANGALORE IN 2013. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018.**