Dismissed

Premakumari T.N v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Dec 2018WP(C)/27722/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed writ petitions challenging land acquisition for highway expansion, noting that the proposal was made to save a temple structure. Relying on a common judgment, the court held petitions are ill-founded but entitled petitioners to compensation under the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed; however, petitioners are entitled to claim compensation under the 2013 Act.

Premakumari T.N Vs Union of India — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 27722 of 2018

PETITIONER/S:

PREMAKUMARI T.N

AGED 72 YEARS

THYKKOTTATHIL HOUSE P.O ,KUNDALIYUR, THRISSUR-680616. 680616

¶10

BY ADV. NANDAKUMAR M.R.

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 UNION OF INDIA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA , NEW DELHI 110001

¶14

2 PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI-110001.

¶15

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH17(KUTTIPURAM-EDAPALLY),KONDUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680666

¶16

4 PROJECT ENGINEER FEEDBACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.14, LANGFORD GARDEN, 1ST FLOOR, LANGFORD AVENUE, LALBAGH ROAD, (NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE) BANGALORE-560025, INDIA.

¶17

5 ENGANDIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH THIRUVATHRA P.O., CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680516, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

BY ADVS. ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS ANTONY SRI.K.A.BALAN, CGC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).27459/2018, & WP(C).32343/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶23

THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶24

WP(C).No. 27459 of 2018

¶25

PETITIONER/S:

¶26

1 AMMINI BHASKARAN, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.BHASKARAN, MATHRAMKOT HOUSE, THIRUVANTHRA P.O., MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR 680 516.

¶27

2 I.KAMRUDHEEN S/O. MOHAMMED, THIRUTHIKKATTU PILAKKAL, PATTALAM HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA P.O, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD. 680516

¶28

3 SAABITHA BAHULEYAN, W/O.BAHULEYAN, MATHRAMKOT HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU,THRISSUR. 680516

¶29

4 THANKA SREENIVASAN, W/O.LATE SREENIVASAN, ALANCHERY HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU ,THRISSUR. 680516

¶30

5 K.S.MOHANAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.LATE SANKARAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, THIRUVATHRA, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR. 680516

¶31

6 R.V.ABU, AGED 1 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED, RAIMARAKKAR VEETTIL, THIRUVATHRA, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR. 680516

¶32

BY ADV. ANAND.K

¶33

RESPONDENT/S:

¶34

1 UNION BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶35

2 PROJECT DIRECTOR NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,NEW DELHI.

¶36

3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17, (KUTTIPURAM-EDAPALLY),KONDUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶37

4 PROJECT ENGINEER FEED BACKINFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.14,LANGFORD GARDEN,1ST FLOOR, LANGFORD AVENUE,LALBAGH ROAD,(NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560025

¶38

5 MANATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THIRUVATHRA P.O, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶39

BY ADVS. SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SRI.THOMAS ANTONY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶40

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).27722/2018 & WP(C).32343/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶42

PRESENT

¶43

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶44

THURSDAY ,THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶45

WP(C).No. 32343 of 2018

¶46

PETITIONER/S:

¶47

1 RAJU M.K AGED 54 YEARS MAKKALIKKAL (H), KADIKKAD VILLAGE, CHERAI DESOM, ANDATHAODE PO., THRISSUR - 679564

¶48

2 V. SAFIYA, W/O. ABDURAHIMAN MADATHODIYIL, ANDATHODE P.O, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR 679 564.

¶49

BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND

¶50

RESPONDENT/S:

¶51

1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001

¶52

2 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, G-5 AND 6, SECTOR 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI 110 075 REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶53

3 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE TC 36/574-1 KRISHNAN KRIPA ERA-42, PALKULANGARA JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 008 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE LEVEL OFFICER.

¶54

4 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17, (KUTTIPURAM-EDAPALLY) KONDUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 664.

¶55

5 PROJECT DIRECTOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COCHIN, NHAI, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU 682 030.

¶56

BY ADVS. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, CGC

¶57

OTHER PRESENT:

¶58

SRI.DINESH R. SHENOY,CGC, SRI.SUVIN.R.MENON,CGC, SRI.K.A.BALAN,CGC FOR R1, SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI ,SC NHAI, SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶59

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.12.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).27722/2018 & WP(C).27459/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶60

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶61

==================

¶62

W.P.(C).No. 27722/2018, 27459/2018 & 32343/2018

¶63

==================

¶64

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2018

¶65

J U D G M E N T

¶66

The prayers W.P.(C).No. 27722/2018 are as follows:

¶67

“a). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to acquire land on the eastern and western side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) equally, in the place where it passes through Engandiyoor.

¶68

b). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to ignore the religious dimension of any structure situated on either side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) for the purpose of acquisition.

¶69

c). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take into consideration of the 4^th respondent to limit the National Highway to 30 meters in places where it passes through important commercial areas.

¶70

d) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Honourable court.”

¶71

The prayers W.P.(C).No. 27459/2018 are as follows:

¶72

“a). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to acquire land on the eastern and western side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) equally, in the place where it passes through Manathala.

¶73

b). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to ignore the religious dimension of any structure situated on either side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) for the purpose of acquisition.

¶74

c). Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take into consideration of the 4^th respondent to limit the National Highway to 30 meters in places where it passes through important commercial areas.

¶75

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶76

: 7 :-

¶77

d) Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Honourable court.”

¶78

The prayers W.P.(C).No. 32343/2018 are as follows:

¶79

“a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction quashing Exhibit P1 notification.

¶80

b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to acquire land on the eastern and western side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) equally, in the place where it passes through Kadikkad village.

¶81

c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 4^th respondent to consider and pass orders on the objections submitted by the petitioners to Exhibit P1 notification before taking any further steps pursuant to Exhibit P1 after hearing the petitioners.

¶82

d. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to ignore the religious dimension of any structure situated on either side of the existing National Highway No.66 (Previously National Highway 17) for the purpose of acquisition.

¶83

e. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to take into consideration the report of the 4^th respondent to limit the National Highway to 30 meters in places where it passes through important commercial areas.

¶84

f. Grant such other relief deemed fit to this Honourable Court.”

¶85

Heard Sri.K.Anand, learned counsel appearing for the

¶86

petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 27459/2018, Sri.M.Premchand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 32343/2018, Sri.M.R.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C).No. 27722/2018, Sri.Dinesh R.Shenoy, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), Sri.Suvin R Menon, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC), Sri.K.A.Balan, Central Government

¶87

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶88

: 8 :-

¶89

Counsel (CGC), appearing for the respondent Union Government, Smt.I.Sheela Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the NHAI appearing for the respondent NHAI authority (National Highway Authority of India) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the State authorities/ competent authorities.

¶90

In these cases, the petitioners are essentially challenging the method adopted by the respondents, more particularly the respondent NHAI in the matter of expansion of the existing national highway No.66 (previously NH 17). One of the main complaints of the petitioners is that the present proposal to acquire land is only on the western side of the existing national highway and that this is done in order to save the structure of a temple and that instead of acquiring land on both sides equally, only the property on the western side of the NH is proposed to be acquired, in the place in question it passes through the properties of the respective petitioners, which is illegal. Further that there was an original proposal in the year 2013, where it was proposed to acquire land equally from the eastern and western side of the NH and if the lands are acquired as per the earlier proposal, the number of dwelling house and the shops that would have been affected was much far lesser, etc. and that the present proposal mooted in 2018, inevitably involves

¶91

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶92

: 9 :-

¶93

acquisition of dwelling houses, shops etc.

¶94

The respondent NHAI authority has filed counter statement in W.P.(C).No.27459/2018 as well as in W.P.(C).No. 32343/2018. Similar cases have already been dealt with by this Court and as per common judgment dated 19.11.2018, in W.P.(C).Nos. 30167/2018, 30198/2018 and 30400/2018, this Court has repelled similar contentions raised by similarly situated petitioners. However, this Court specifically directed therein that the land owners concerned will be entitled to receive compensation benefits in the acquisition process in terms of the provisions contained as per schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013, as amended, even though the acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the National Highway Act, 1956. This Court has clearly held that it will not be right and proper for this Court to exercise judicial review remedy in public law so as to interdict the present land acquisition proceedings on the basis of available pleadings and materials on record and going by the yardstick and norms well established in a series of rulings of the Apex Court and various High Courts, especially in the matter of acquisition under the National Highway Act, 1956. Those aspects are dealt with in detail in

¶95

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶96

: 10 :-

¶97

the abovesaid common judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 30167/2018 and connected cases. Though feeble plea of mala fides has been brought to the notice of this Court, no substantial materials have been made available before this Court to hold that there is any overwhelming and manifest malafides, which vitiate the entire proceedings.

¶98

Adopting the findings and reasonings of this Court in the abovesaid common judgment in W.P.(C).No.30167/2018 and connected cases, these Writ Petitions are only to be dismissed. However, it is ordered that the petitioners herein will also be entitled to claim the benefit of compensation in terms of the provisions contained in new 2018 Act as amended, even though the proceedings have been set in motion as per the old Act. For the sake of clarity, it is ordered that the Registry will place a copy of the judgment dated 19.11.2018 in W.P.(C).No. 30167/2018 and connected cases, as appendix to this judgment.

¶99

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Writ Petitions (Civil) stand dismissed.

¶100

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶101

sdk+

¶102

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶103

: 11 :-

¶104

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27722/2018

¶105

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶106

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE	TAX RECEIPT NO.1538506
	DATED 8.3.2018.

¶107

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE WILBERSMITH ASSOCIATES, BANGALORE IN 2013. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018.

¶108

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.30167/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES IS APPENDED.

¶109

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶110

: 12 :-

¶111

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27459/2018

¶112

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶113

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY 23.4.2018	OF THE OF THE	TAX RECEIPT NO.1583275 DATED 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY 7.6.2018 O	OF THE F THE 2	TAX RECEIPT NO.1784895 DATED ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P2 A TRUE COPY 7/6/2018	OF THE	TAX RECEIPT NO. 1784896 DATED
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY DATED 13.9	OF T .2017 O	HE TAX RECEIPT NO. 03995726 F THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY 26.7.2018	OF THE OF THE	TAX RECEIPT NO. 0181481 DATED 4TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE OCPY 23.8.2017	OF THE OF THE	TAX RECEIPT NO. 7098623 DATED 5TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY 23.6.2017	OF THE OF THE	TAX RECEIPT NO. 7086849 DATED 6TH PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE NAT	NOTIFICATION DATED 8.6.2018 IONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COP WILBERSMIT	Y OF H ASSOC	THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE IATES, BANGALORE IN 2013.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY BANK INFRA	OF TH PRIVAT	E SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEED E LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018.
COPY OF APPENDE	THE JUDGMENT IN D.	WPC.30	167/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES IS

¶114

W.P.(C).Nos.27722/18, 27459/18 & 34343/18

¶115

: 13 :-

¶116

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32343/2018

¶117

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶118

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE 2018	COPY ISSUED	OF THE BY THE	NOTIFICATION DATED 08-07- 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE 26/11	COP /2013	Y OF ISSUED	THE NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE ISSUE	COPY D BY T	OF THE HE VILL	RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AGE OFFICE KADIKKAD.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE ISSUE	COPY D BY T	OF THE HE VILL	RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AGE OFFICE KADIKKAD.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PETIT	COPY IONERS	OF OB	JECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PETIT	COPY IONERS	OF OB	JECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PETIT	COPY IONERS	OF OB	JECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
COPY OF THE JUDGME APPENDED.	NT IN	WPC.3016	7/2018 AND CONNECTED CASES IS

Premakumari T.N v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premakumari T.N v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayakumar Vs State

G.Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Govind Annex Owners' Association Vs Principal Secretary to Government

C.G.Radhadevi Vs the State of Kerala

T.P.Sulaika Vs State of Kerala

Maliekkal Jameela, Vs the District Collector