Writ petitions challenging land acquisition for expanding National Highway 66 were dismissed. The court held that alignment is a matter of technical expertise and judicial review is not warranted absent malafide. Petitioners will receive compensation under the 2013 Act.
Writ petitions challenging land acquisition proceedings were dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/28TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No.30167 of 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 ABDU S/O.KUNJI MOIDU, AGED 77 YEARS, VILAKKATHARA, EDAKKAZHIYUR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD-680515.
2 SALEEM NARANATH, S/O.ABDU, AGED 45 YEARS, VILAKKATHARA, EDAKKAZHIYUR VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD-680515.
BY ADVOCATE SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COCHIN, NHAI, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU-682030.
3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17, (KUTTIPURAM - EDAPPALLY), KODUNGALLUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680666.
4 PROJECT ENGINEER, FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO.14, LANGFORD GARDEN, 1ST FLOOR, LANGFORD AVENUE, LALBAGH ROAD, (NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE), BANGALORE-560025, INDIA.
5 PUNNAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EDAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-680518, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER BY SRI.THOMAS ANTONY, SC, NHAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.30198/2018 & WP(C).NO.30400/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/28TH KARTHIKA, 1940
W.P.(C).No.30198 of 2018
PETITIONERS:
1 SHARAFUDEEN,
S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 40 YEARS, KURIKKALAKATH KALLUVALAPPIL, 5 EDAKKAZHIYUR, PUNNAYUR PANCHAYATH, CHAVAKKAD-680515.
2 PRABHAKARAN,
S/O.APUKUTTY, AGED 60 YEARS, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR POST, EDAKKAZHIYUR, CHAVAKKAD-680515.
S/O.HASSAN MUSLIYAR, NALAKATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR POST, CHAVAKKAD-680515.
S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, NALAKATH KALLINGAL HOUSE, EDAKKAZHIYUR POST, CHAVAKKAD-680515.
BY ADVOCATE SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110 001.
SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SRI.THOMAS ANTONY, SC, NHAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.30167/2018 & WP(C).NO.30400/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/28TH KARTHIKA, 1940
WP(C).No.30400 of 2018
PETITIONERS:
KHADEEJA,
W/O.AHAMMADUNNI HAJI, AGED 74 YEARS, M.V.MANSION, MANATHALA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD-680516.
BY ADVOCATE SRI.JOSWIN THAMBI KUNNATH
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INIDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 PROJECT DIRECTOR, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION COCHIN, NHAI, MAVELIPURAM, KAKKANADU-682030.
3 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LA) AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, OFFICE OF NH-17(KUTTIPURAM-EDAPALLY), KONDUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680666.
4 PROJECT ENGINEER, FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, NO. 14, LANGFORD GARDEN, 1ST FLOOR, LANGFORD AVENUE, LALBAGH ROAD, (NEAR RICHMOND CIRCLE), BANGALORE-560025, INDIA.
5 MANATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVATHRA P.O, CHAVAKKADU, THRISSUR-680516, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC SRI.THOMAS ANTONY, SC, NHAI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of November, 2018
J U D G M E N T
As the grievances projected by these petitioners raise common issues, these matters are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.
W.P.(C).Nos.30167 & 30198 of 2018
2. According to the petitioners, they are essentially aggrieved by the impugned action and methodology adopted by the respondents to expand the existing National Highway 66 (Old NH 17), on the basis of the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956. Petitioners would contend that the present proposal is to acquire the land only on the eastern side of the existing National Highway 66 in order to save
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..6..
the structure of mosque/temple/school and that instead of acquiring land on both sides of existing National Highway 66, equally, only property on the eastern side of National Highway 66 is proposed to be acquired in the place where
it passes through the petitioners' property. Further it is submitted that there was no major objection when the original sketch was prepared in the year 2013, when it was proposed to acquire the land equally from the eastern and western side of National Highway 66 and if the lands were acquired as per the previous proposal, the number of the affected dwelling houses and shops would have been much lesser. That both the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.30167 of 2018 have valid building permit issued by the 5th respondent Panchayath in the year 2016-17 and they have constructed houses in the above said property and
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..7..
that due to the present proposal, land in which a lot of dwelling houses and commercial buildings exist will have to acquired, etc.
3. The prayers in the W.P.(c).No.30167 of
2018 are as follows.
“
4. The prayers in the W.P.(c).No.30198 of
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..8..
2018 are as follows.
5. Heard Sri.Joswin Thambi Kunnath, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases, Sri.Suvin R. Menon, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for R1, Sri.Thomas Antony, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI,
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..9..
appearing for the 2nd respondent NHAI in these cases, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R3 in these cases, etc.
6. The 2nd respondent NHAI has filed
separate counter statements in these cases.
7. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the statement of R2 filed in W.P.(c).No.30167 of 2018 that Sec.3A notification was published in this
case as referred to in Ext.P-5. Further the 2nd respondent has strongly denied the allegation that the acquisition is only from the side of the
petitioners to avoid certain religious and commercial establishments on the proposal by certain allegedly influential persons on the opposite side, etc. and have stated that the said allegations of the petitioners are not true or correct. And the said so called influential
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..10..
persons are not made party in these proceedings. It is also stated that generally additional land required is acquired from both sides of the existing highway. But due to technical reasons to maintain the desired speed limit upto 80 – 100
kmph and also considering the geometric parameters and radius of curvature in touch with the IRC (Indian Roads Congress) code, land will have to be acquired only from one side of the existing highway.
8. Annexure R-2(a) produced W.P.(C).No.30167 of 2018 is the approved alignment showing the Land Acquisition Plan from Design Ch.340/000 to 344/000. It is stated that the properties of the petitioners would fall within the notification and the survey numbers of the properties are also mentioned in the said statements of R2. Further it is stated that a perusal of Annexure R2(a)
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..11..
would reveal that there are curves within one kilometers and the first curve starts before Ch.343/000 and ends at 343/300 and the second curve starts from Ch.343/800 at the western side and proceeds further to the eastern side of the existing highway and proceeds beyond Ch.344/000.
It is for for straightening the two curves mentioned above more land is required on the eastern side of the existing highway from Ch.343/200 to Ch.344/000. It is for the said reason that the property of the petitioners and others situated in those chainages on the eastern side of the National Highway are required for the highway development. Due to the above technical aspects, more land is required on the Left Hand Side (LHS) (eastern side) of the existing highway
proceeding from Vengalam to Edapally in the area of the petitioners. Further the 2nd
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..12..
respondent has admitted that there are two mosque at the chainage Ch.343/280 and Ch.343/695 on the RHS (west) of the existing highway. However it is asserted in the said counter statement that it is not for saving those mosques but for correcting the geometric deficiencies that the property of the petitioners and others in the survey number concerned are required for the highway development. Similar averments
are made in the counter statement of R-2 in W.P.(C).No.30198 of 2018 as well.
9. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the counter statement in W.P.(C).No.30167 of 2018
that " If land is acquired from both sides equally or of the existing highway as pleaded by the petitioners the same will result in re-creating the geometric deficiencies that are there in the existing highway which will reduce the design speed and will create dangerous
areas to the traveling public. " It is also stated
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..13..
that Ext.P-6 in W.P.(C).No.30167 of 2018 and Ext.P-9 in WP(C).No.30198/2018 which is the earlier alignment also shows that land is not acquired equally from both sides of the existing highway. Further it is stated in paragraph 10 of the counter statement filed in W.P.(C).No.30167 of 2018 that the 2nd respondent deny that the petitioners have filed their objections within the stipulated time of 21 days from the issuance of Ext.P-5 notification published in the locality and that the petitioners are put to strict proof to prove that they have filed the statutory objections before the 3rd respondent competent authority within the time allowed by law.
10. Further it is clearly stated that even
though land is being acquired under the provisions of the National Highway Act, 1956, the petitioners and other similar persons affected by
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..14..
the impugned Land Acquisition proceedings will be given compensation under the new enactment of 2013, viz, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as amended. So there is no discrimination meted out to the petitioners and similar affected persons who are covered by the notification under the National Highway Act, 1956, as the same benefits as in new 2013 Act will be given to the petitioners and other similar persons and that, there is no question of violation of right to equality as understood in Part III of the Constitution of India in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Following averments are also made by the 2nd respondent in paras 7 to 13 of the counter
statement filed by the same party in WP(C).No.30198 of 2018 which reads as follows.
“
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..15..
7. The true copy of the approved alignment showing the land acquisition from Design Ch. 343/000 to 346 /000 is produced herewith and may be marked as Annexure- R2 (a) series. Perusal of Annexure R2(a) (1) will reveal that there are two curves within the one kilometer. The first curve starts before Ch.343/000 and ends at 343/300. The second curve starts from Ch.343/800 at the western side and proceeds further to the eastern side of the existing highway and proceeds beyond Ch.344/000 and ends at Ch.344/300 in Annexure R2(a) (2). It is for straightening the two curves mentioned above that more land is required on the eastern side of the existing highway from Ch.343/200 to Ch. 344/300. It is for the said reason that the property of the petitioners 1 to 3, and 6 situated between Ch 343/200 and Ch.344/300 on the east of the existing highway are required for the highway development. The property of the 5th petitioner is situated on the western side of the existing highway between Ch.343/500 and Ch.343/600.
8. The property of the 4th petitioner which is situated between Ch.345/900 and Ch.346/000 on the east of the existing highway is required for the highway development. Annexure R2(a) (3) will reveal that after the property of the 4th petitioner situated almost at Ch.3345/980 the existing highway starts another curve by deviating from the west to the east. It is for straightening the various curves present in the existing two lane highway from Ch.343/000 to Ch.346/000 as revealed from Annexure R2(a) series of approved alignment plan that the properties of the petitioners are required for the development of the existing two lane highway into a four lane highway.
..16..
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
9. Due to the above technical aspect, more land is required on the Left Hand Side(LHS) (eastern side) of the existing highway proceeding from Vengalam to Edapally in the area of the petitioners. It is true that there are Mosques at Ch.343/280, Ch. 343/695, Ch.344/250, 344/600, Ch.344/700, Ch 345/710 and Ch.345/900 on the RHS (west) of the existing highway. There is another mosque on the LHS (east) of the existing highway at Ch.345/085. Portions of some of the above mosques are also being acquired for the highway development. It is not for saving those Mosques but for correcting the geometrics deficiencies that the properties of the petitioners and others in that survey number are required for the highway development.
10. It is submitted that it is not for saving the Mosque, School or the Temple that the alignment is shifted to the east or west of the existing highway but for the geometric improvement of the existing curve at the chainage mentioned above whereby the stretch is straightened in to a four lane as per the IRC Code of Manual in order to maintain a design speed of 80100 Km/Hr.
11. If land is acquired from both sides equally of the existing highway as pleaded by the petitioners the same will result in recreating the geometric deficiencies that are there in the existing highway which will reduce the design speed and will create dangerous areas to the traveling public. Ext. P9, which is the earlier alignment also shows that land is not acquired equally from both sides of the existing highway.
12. The petitioners have pleaded that they had filed objections to Ext P8 notification
..17..
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
and that they were heard by the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent deny that the petitioners have filed their objection within the stipulated time of 21 days from the date of Ext.P8 notification published in the locality. The petitioners are put to strict proof to prove that they have filed the objection to the 3rd respondent within the time stipulate by law.
13. It is submitted that even though land is being acquired under the provisions of the NH Act 1956, the petitioners and similarly
affected persons will be given Compensation under the New Land Acquisition Act, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 as amended. Thus there is no discrimination meted out to the petitioners and all similarly situated persons are treated equally. No fundamental right of the petitioners is violated. ”
12. The above said factual aspects averred by the 2nd respondent in the pleadings has not been factually rebutted and controverted by the petitioners. In view of the facts and circumstances disclosed in this case more particularly, from the pleadings and details on record placed by the 2nd respondent, this Court is
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..18..
of the considered view, that the petitioners have not successfully made out cogent grounds for warranting the invocation of public law remedy of judicial review so as to interdict the land acquisition proceedings in these cases. The Apex Court in the decision in COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY (2006 KHC 156 = (2005) 13 SCC 477) has held that right to raise objections conferred by Sec.3C(1) of the NH Act, 1956 is extremely limited in character and that it not for the writ court to decide on the alignment for acquisition since such alignment is to be fixed after due scientific and technical studies. So also it has been held by the Apex Court in series of cases as in STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER VS. GURDIAL SINGH & OTHERS [(1980) 2 SCC 471] AND SHUKLA V.S. & OTHERS VS. NHAI & OTHERS (2013 KHC 2619) that a writ court exercising public law
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..19..
remedy of Judicial review may not be justified in considering the feasibility of alternative elements in the absence of any established plea of manifest malafides etc. It has also been held in the judgment of Apex Court in UOI VS. KUSHALA SHETTY & OTHERS [(2011) 12 SCC 69] , that a writ court cannot decide upon the viability and feasibility of a particular project unless it is ex-facie found to be contrary to law or is tainted due to palpable malafide etc. In the light of the above well settled legal position, and in view of the indisputable facts and circumstances emerging in this case, this Court is of the view that it is not right and proper for this Court to invoke the extraordinary remedy of judicial review to interdict the impugned land acquisition proceedings in this case. Moreover the 2nd respondent NHAI has clearly stated in
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 &
30400 of 2018
..20..
their pleadings that though the impugned land acquisition proceedings have been set in motion under the National Highway Act, 1956, the petitioners and other similar persons affected by the said acquisition proceedings will be given compensation under the new enactment of 2013, viz, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as amended. So the petitioners cannot urge that any discrimination is shown to them who are subjected to the acquisition under the National Highway Act, 1956, vis-a-vis, acquisition under the 2013 Act. Accordingly the above Writ Petitions (Civil) will stand dismissed.
W.P.(C).No.30400 of 2018
13. The prayer in W.P.(C).No.30400 of 2018
are as follows.
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..21..
“
14. Heard Sri.Joswin Thambi Kunnath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Sudhin Kumar, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for R1, Sri.Thomas Antony, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, appearing for the 2nd respondent NHAI, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for R3 etc.
15. It is also pointed out by the petitioners
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..22..
in W.P.(C).No.30400 of 2018, that the respondents are now going ahead with Ext.P-6 sketch and the 3rd respondent competent authority now has notified only the land on the eastern side of the existing Manathala-Blangad Road, after leaving a further gap of 20 meters towards the eastern side and has now proposed to acquire 45 meters wherein the houses of the petitioners is situated. The said proposal will also lead to the situation where hundreds of houses including that of petitioners will have to be acquired. Here also it is contended that the land for new highway if acquired just adjacent to existing ManathalaBlangad Road on its eastern side through the 20 meters gap left un-acquired, none of the petitioners' houses will be effected and that if the proposal of 2013 is implemented then also the petitioners' residential houses need not be
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..23..
acquired. The petitioners are placing reliance on Ext.P-5 sketch in that regard. The petitioners is essentially aggrieved by Ext.P-6 and would advocate strongly that the one in Ext.P-5 should be the basis for the impugned land acquisition, etc.
16. The issue in this case is almost similar to the one in the above referred W.P.(C).Nos. 30167 & 30198 of 2018. As the acquisition is set in motion under the National Highway Act, 1956, the only difference is that the properties of the petitioners herein lies in a village different in
the other cases. Similar contentions are also raised in this writ petition. Accordingly this Court is of the view that, no grounds are made out for judicial interdiction in this case as well.
17. However it is made clear that the
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..24..
petitioners and other similar persons who are affected by the land acquisition on the National Highway Act, 1956, will be given compensation under the new 2013 Act, in view of the legal position to that effect already stated in the other writ petitions dealt with herein above. In view of these aspects it is ordered that the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.
Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
MMG
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..25..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.30167/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0177558 DATED 19.7.2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0177557 DATED 19.7.2018 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE WILBERSMITH ASSOCIATES, BANGALORE IN 2013.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEEDBACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PLAN
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..26..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.30198/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE COPY OF 0177317 DATED PETITIONER |
THE TAX RECEIPT NO. 28/7/2018 OF THE 1ST |
|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE COPY OF | THE TAX RECEIPT NO. |
| 0177342 DATED PETITIONER |
31/5/2018 OF THE 2ND | |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE COPY OF 0177622 DATED PETITIONER |
THE TAX RECEIPT NO. 24/7/2018 OF THE 3RD |
| EXHIBIT P4 | TRUE COPY OF | THE TAX RECEIPT NO. |
| 0177596 DATED PETITIONER |
23/7/2018 OF THE 4TH | |
| EXHIBIT P5 | TRUE COPY OF | THE TAX RECEIPT NO. |
| 259220 DATED PETITIONER |
3/9/2018 OF THE 5TH | |
| EXHIBIT P6 | TRUE COPY OF 7103217 DATED PETITIONER |
THE TAX RECEIPT NO. 6/6/2017 OF THE 6TH |
| EXHIBIT P7 | TRUE COPY OF | THE TAX RECEIPT NO. |
| 0177432 DATED PETITIONER |
6/8/2018 OF THE 7TH | |
| EXHIBIT P8 | TRUE COPY OF THE 8/6/2018 ISSUED HIGHWAY AUTHORIT |
NOTIFICATION DATED BY THE NATIONAL Y |
| EXHIBIT P9 | TRUE COPY OF TH WILBERSMITH ASS 2013 |
E SKETCH ISSUED BY THE OCIATES, BANGALORE IN |
W.P.(C).Nos.30167, 30198 & 30400 of 2018
..27..
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEEDBACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND ACQUISITION PLAN SERIES
APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.30400/2018
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0270023 DATED 21-08-2018 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.0219931 DATED 6-8-2018 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 8- 6-2018 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE WILBERSMITH ASSOCIATES, BANGALORE IN 2013
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH PREPARED BY THE PETITIONERS SHOWING THE EXISTING MANATHALA-BLANGAD ROAD AND THE PROPOSED HIGHWAY AND 20 METERS SPACE IN BETWEEN THE SAME.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE FEED BACK INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE IN 2018.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can interfere with the alignment of land acquisition for highway expansion based on technical grounds.
Whether acquiring land from one side of the highway instead of both violates rights to equality and religious sentiments.
Whether petitioners' objections to the land acquisition notification were filed within the stipulated time.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Competent Authority vs. Barangore Jute FactoryRelied on¶144
COMPETENT AUTHORITY VS. BARANGORE JUTE FACTORY (2006 KHC 156 = (2005) 13 SCC 477) · Who else cites this
State Of Punjab vs. Gurdial SinghRelied on¶144
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER VS. GURDIAL SINGH & OTHERS [(1980) 2 SCC 471] · Who else cites this
Shukla V.S. & Others vs. NHAI & OthersRelied on¶144
SHUKLA V.S. & OTHERS VS. NHAI & OTHERS (2013 KHC 2619)
UOI vs. Kushala ShettyRelied on¶147
UOI VS. KUSHALA SHETTY & OTHERS [(2011) 12 SCC 69] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Abdu S/Kunji Moidu
Saleem Naranath
Sharafudeen
Prabhakaran
V.Kabeer
Khadeeja
alexander thomas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
