ABDULKAREEM HAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and 8 and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent Corporation.

(2.) PRAYERS sought in this writ Petition are to quash Exts.P1, P2 and P4 and to direct the respondents to consider the realignment of the road and to require them to acquire land equally from both sides of the road in question. Petitioners are the owners of a commercial building known as Central Arcade Building on the eastern side of the Kalluthankadavu-Arayadathupalam Mini By-pass. Widening of this mini by-pass road is included in the City Improvement Road Project. Accordingly, M/s. Consultant Engineering Service Pvt. Ltd., Delhi were selected as the consultant and the consultant prepared an alignment for widening the road to 20 meters from the existing 15 meters. Accordingly, by Ext.P11 order dated 8.9.2008, administrative sanction was accorded by the Land Revenue Commissioner for initiating acquisition for acquiring land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Subsequently, by his communication dated 6.10.2010, District Collector, Kozhikode sought permission of the Government to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17(4) of the Act and to complete the acquisition dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. This was considered by the Land Revenue Commissioner who by Ext.P12 dated 16.11.2010 accorded sanction to proceed under Section 17(4). Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 26.11.2010 and in local dailies on 8.12.2010 and 9.12.2010. This was followed by Ext.P1, notice under Rule 7(2) dated 4.1.2011. The notification thus issued included 0.0136 hectors of land belonging to the petitioners, which according to them is a portion of the car park of their commercial building. They submitted Ext.P8 representation requesting to avoid their property from acquisition and contending that since the width of the road is to be increased by 5 meter equal extent of property should be acquired from the opposite side of the road as well. It is thereafter that they filed this writ petition on 29.3.2012 with the prayers mentioned above.

(3.) NOW what remains is the claim of the petitioners that equal extent of land is to be acquired from the opposite side of the road also. In the counter affidavit what is stated by the respondent is that alignment of road has been finalised by M/s. Consultant Engineers' services Pvt. Ltd, Delhi under the guidance of Prof. Dr. N.S. Sreenivasan, the erstwhile Director of NATPAC.. It is also stated in the affidavit that though the width is to be enhanced by 5 meters, the average width of acquired land is 2.5 feet each from both sides of the road.