Dismissed

Joseph O.E. v. National Transorting Planning & Research

Kerala HC4 Oct 2010WA/1648/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an appeal against a judgment declining interference in land acquisition proceedings for constructing a toll plaza on National Highway 47. The Court held that feasibility and public purpose lie within the exclusive jurisdiction of authorities and found no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; the earlier judgment was affirmed.

Joseph O.E. Vs National Transorting Planning & Research — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

WA.No. 1648 of 2010

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) No. 24450/2010 Dated 08/09/2010

¶7

APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

¶9

JOSEPH O.E., S/O.LATE ISSAC, ONASSERITHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THENIDUKKU, PANNIYAMKARA,POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

K.T.THOMAS, S/O.K.M,.THOMAS,KOODATHINALIL HOUSE, THENIDUKKU,VADAKKENCHERRY POST,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

JOHN K.THOMAS, S/O.K.M,.THOMAS,KOODATHINALIL HOUSE, THENIDUKKU,VADAKKENCHERRY POST,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

KRISHNANKUTTY P., S/O.LATE C.NARAYANAN NAIR, POOTHAMKURISSI HOUSE,PANNIYANKARA,PANNIYANKARA POS T,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

¶16

NATIONAL TRANSPORTING PLANNING & RESEARCH CENTRE(NATPAC)REP.BY ITS CHIEF PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4.

¶17

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,SLAO, COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY-47, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶18

THE PROJECT DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF

¶19

INDIA,BPL.JUNCTION, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶20

WA No.1648 OF 2010

¶21

¶22

THE MANAGER,NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, BPL.JUNCTION, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶23

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS (D)DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶24

THE CHIEF ENGINEER(NH), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶25

R3 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY

¶26

R5 & R6 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA.

¶27

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶29

¶30

W.A. No. 1648 of 2010

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2010

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶35

The appellants are before this Court having lost the battle before the learned Single Judge with regard to the acquisition proceedings launched at the instance of the National Highways Authority for establishing a 'toll plaza' in NH 47 at a 'point 243' K.Ms. The case projected by the appellants is that, if the acquisition is made so as to establish the 'toll plaza' at the proposed site, irreparable loss and injury are likely to be resulted; which made them to file W.P.(C) No.24450 of 2010 seeking to locate the 'toll plaza' at 'point 244' K.Ms., stating that it is a more convenient spot, which will cause only less disadvantage to the persons concerned.

¶36

Going by the materials on record, it is very much clear that the appellants/petitioners, along with some others, had approached this Court earlier, by filing W.P.(C) No.33522 of 2007, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, whereby interference was declined and

¶37

W.A.No.1648 of 2010

¶38

¶39

the writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently, referring to some other communication in between the concerned authorities, the appellants approached this Court again by filing W.P.(C) No.24450 of 2010. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition and other relevant aspects were considered and this Court observed that the appellants were abusing the process of the Court by filing such a writ petition even after the dismissal of W.P.(C) No.33522 of 2007 filed in respect of the very same cause of action. It was also observed that the earlier verdict had become final, in as much as there was no challenge to it either by way of appeal or review. In the said circumstances, interference was declined and the writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rupees five thousand.

¶40

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the factual position, particularly with reference to the communication sent by the Chief Engineer to the Secretary to the Government as borne by Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 have not been properly adverted to. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that the averments made by the appellants are devoid of any merit or bona fides.

¶41

W.A.No.1648 of 2010

¶42

¶43

It is brought to our notice that the proceedings have

¶44

already been finalized passing the awards by the concerned Land Acquisition Officer; pursuant to which, compensation has been released to the concerned persons. It is also pointed out that the appellants do not have any plea of mala fides with regard to the acquisition proceedings. It is settled position of law, that the 'feasibility' of the land and the 'public purpose' are matters within the exclusive realm and jurisdiction of the concerned authorities/respondents and the scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters is only to a limited extent.

¶45

In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶46

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice

¶47

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,

¶48

Judge

¶49

vns

Joseph O.E. v. National Transorting Planning & Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph O.E. v. National Transorting Planning & Research

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratiksh a Asher Vs State of Kerala

Pratiksh a.Asher, Proprietor Vs State of Kerala, Rep.by the Secretary

John K.C. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Chithumma Kunjumuhammed Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Devassykutty A.M Vs the Dist. Collector , Thrissur & Another

Lineesh M. and Others Vs the Controller of Examinations, Calicut