SALINI V.S Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in W.P.(C)No.14782 of 2021 have filed the appeal challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dtd. 13/10/2021, whereby the following reliefs sought for in the writ petition are declined and the writ petition was dismissed:

(2.) In the writ petition the basic contention advanced by the appellants is that the alignment for widening NH-66 from chainage 405+700 to 409+100 (about 400 meters) within the Kapprikkad - Edappally sec. is illegal. It is the case of the appellants that it is the third time in the recent past appellants properties are sought to be acquired and in the present acquisition, the dwelling houses and commercial buildings are also sought to be acquired. The paramount contention advanced by the appellants is that the action of the respondents are arbitrary, malafide and discriminatory, avoiding the green field vacant plots on the western side which was the earlier notified route for acquisition. It is further submitted that as per the said earlier 2018 notification issued under Sec. 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 ie. Exhibit P2, the alignment was mostly through the green field wherein only three houses on the western side would be affected. However, the said notification was allowed to be lapsed deliberately, and a new 3A notification ie., Exhibits P3 and P4 are issued in the year 2020 excluding the green fields and including the dwelling houses and commercial buildings of the appellants and others, numbering about 21.

(3.) According to the appellants, when objections were raised before the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), NH 66, North Paravur, Ernakulam District - the third respondent, by the affected persons, he has stated that he has no power to decide on alignment and referred the issue to the 2nd respondent Project Director, but in turn the 3rd respondent, rejected the objections of appellants 1 to 3 stating that already a decision is taken in respect of the objection. According to the appellants, when similar objections against the alignment were raised by the affected parties against Exhibit P2 earlier notification, the stand of the Special Deputy Collector - the third respondent was different. It is predominantly submitted that it is clear from Exhibit P31(b) notes, the third respondent recommended change of alignment and it was accepting the same only the earlier alignment has been changed and present Exhibit P3 notification under Sec. 3A is issued. According to the appellants, the present alignment drastically affects the residential buildings of the appellants. Therefore, it was contended that, it was without allowing or disallowing the objections submitted by the appellants under Sec. 3C in regard to the alignment that the third respondent - Special Deputy Collector has taken the decision which is erroneous and mala fide.