KAKKAD JUMUHATH PALLI MAHALLU COMMITTEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Palli Mahallu Committee represented by its Secretary, challenges a notification issued under the National Highway Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') for acquisition of properties. It is stated that the khabarsthan of the mosque would be acquired, if the notification is given effect to. Alleging that the proposed alignment is unscientific and illogical and that there is sufficient vacant space available on the opposite side of the road, the petitioner contends that the alternate proposal pointed out by the petitioner was liable to be considered. It is stated that along with the objections of the petitioner, a detailed alternate proposal had been submitted, by which the property of the petitioner would be exempted and the compensation payable would be lesser and existing curves could be straightened out. It is stated that without considering the viable alternate proposals submitted by the petitioner, the respondents are proceeding with acquisition as provided in Exhibit P1 notification.

(2.) The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority of India has placed a statement on record. It is stated therein that though an earlier proposal had been mooted in the year 2007 through a preliminary project report, the initial notification was withdrawn. It is submitted that pursuant to a meeting held with the Central Government on 10.4.2015, detailed studies were conducted and a new project report was prepared in 2017. All the aspects of the matter were examined and the plan and lay out was made available for inspection by all concerned. It is stated that the contention that there is vacant land available opposite the mosque is not correct and major portion of the land lying opposite the mosque with 12 commercial structures have also been acquired in terms of Exhibit P1 notification. It is stated that the objection of the petitioner had been considered in detail and it was found that the alignment proposed is the most technically feasible alignment affecting the least number of people and causing least inconvenience.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader has also placed a counter affidavit on record on behalf of the 5th respondent. It is stated that the objection filed by the petitioner against Exhibit P1 notification had been considered and the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing. It is stated that the objection of the petitioner had been forwarded to the Project Director, National Highway Authority of India, Calicut for specific remarks and such remarks had been meticulously considered before the orders were issued. The learned Government Pleader would rely on the decision of the Apex Court in Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory [2006 KHC 156] to contend that the right to raise objections conferred by Section 3C(1) of the Act is extremely limited in character. It is further contended that it is not for this Court to decide on the alignment for acquisition, since such alignment is fixed after due scientific studies. The decisions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Another v. Gurdial Singh and Others [1980(2) SCC 471] and Shukla V.S and Others v. National Highway Authority of India (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) and Others [2013 KHC 2619] are also relied on to contend that this Court would not be justified in considering the feasibility of alternate alignments in the absence of any plea of mala fides.