(1.) The captioned writ appeals are filed by the petitioner in the writ petition against the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) Nos. 38437 of 2018 and 17505 of 2020 respectively, dated 09.04.2021. The subject issue relates to acquisition of land initiated by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956.
(2.) W. P. (C) No. 38437 of 2018 was filed seeking to quash Ext. P6 notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and National Highways dated 08.06.2018, issued in accordance with the powers vested under Section 3-A of the National Highways Act, 1956, to acquire various properties for widening of National Highway 66 and construction of four lane road in which property of the petitioner was included. Objections were called for from the property owners, to be submitted before the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Thiruvananthapuram. At the outset it is clarified that earlier two notifications were issued which were lapsed consequent to the failure of the authority to make declaration under section 3D of the act 1956 within one year. Appellant had also sought direction to the respondents to proceed with the acquisition, in accordance with the alignment plan prepared by M/s. Inter Continental Consultants (P) Ltd., as of 2009, and approved by the NHAI and the Central Government, evident from Exts. P4 and P5 notifications dated 24.12.2009 and 27.03.2012, respectively.
(3.) W. P. (C) No. 17505 of 2020 was filed seeking to quash Ext. P10 communication issued by the Public Works Department, Government of Kerala dated 01.02.2017 to the Regional Officer, National Highways Authority of India, Thiruvananthapuram informing that the State Government have examined the alignment option received along with the letter dated 09.01.2017 issued by NHAI bearing No. NHAI/RO-Kerala/TVM/24013/2015/07 and conveying that the alignment option is found to be acceptable in general. However it was pointed out that authority could not follow the concentric widening with respect to the central line of existing alignment for a considerable length due to the proximity of religious structures. It was also stated that the details of structures affected due to the alignment are not shown in the drawing, however the Government approved the alignment option in general. Other consequential directions were also sought for by the petitioner.