Dismissed

N.Mohanan v. National Highways Authority of India

Kerala HC19 Dec 2018WP(C)/33913/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged land acquisition proceedings to stop them and direct authorities to consider his objections to notifications. The Court held that the acquisition process was complete with the land vested in the Central Government and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as there were no valid grounds for exercising powers of judicial review.

N.Mohanan Vs National Highways Authority 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.33913 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

N.MOHANAN, AGED 57 YEARS (RETD COLONEL), S/O RAMAN, THAIVALAPPIL, UPASANA HOUSE, PO THIRUVANGOOR, CHEMENCHERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, INDIA

¶8

BY ADVS. C.PUSHPODARAN SMT.ABEETHA PUSHPODARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA REP BY ITS MANAGER (TECH), REGIONAL OFFICE, T.C. 36/574-1, KRISHNA KRIPA ERA-42, PALKULANGARA JUNCTION, VALLAKADAVU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

¶11

2 THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, (NHAI), THE VAISHNAVAM, BEHIND THE POPULAR MARUTHI, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.

¶12

3 THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION, (NHAI), KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN-673020.

¶13

4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR

¶14

(LA) NH KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶15

5 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI, SC FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R3 AND R4

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶21

-2-

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶23

W.P.(C).No.33913 of 2018

¶24

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2018.

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are

¶27

as follows:

¶28

“ 1) To issue Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, to quash Ext.P4 Notification and all proceedings as regards the acquisition of the petitioner's property as shown in Ext.P4.

¶29

2) Issue a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P5 in accordance with law and within such time period as may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.

¶30

3) Award costs; and

¶31

4) Grant such other reliefs as are deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case in order to meet out justice.”

¶32

2. Heard Sri.C.Pushpodaran, learned counsel

¶33

for the petitioner and Smt.I Sheela Devi, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI appearing for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 & 4.

¶34

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the

¶35

impugned land acquisition proceedings initiated

¶36

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶37

-3-

¶38

against his property by respondents 1 to 3 for expansion of NH 17/66 (old NH 17) in accordance with the provisions contained in the National Highways Act. The petitioner mainly aggrieved by Ext.P-4 notification which is said to have been published in the local daily Malayala Manorama dated 17.3.2017 and prays for a direction to ensure that his objections given as per Ext.P-3 dated 14.12.2017 before the District Collector and

¶39

Ext.P-5 dated 20.3.2018 submitted before the 3^rd respondent-competent authority should be directed to be considered in accordance with law, etc.

¶40

4. Respondents 1 & 2 (NHAI) have filed a statement dated 14.11.2018 on their behalf through the Standing Counsel in this case. Smt.I.Sheela Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 & 2 would submit that earlier a Sec.3A notification under the National Highways Act was issued and published as per S.O.2759(E) dated

¶41

8.12.2011 the said proceedings have elapsed.

¶42

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶43

-4-

¶44

Thereafter, a fresh notification under Sec.3A was duly issued and published in the Gazette of India as per S.O.3551 (E) dated 8.11.2017 and the said notification was also published in 2 local dailies on 8.11.2017. That thereafter Sec.3C notification was duly considered and disposed by the 3^rd respondent competent authority and in accordance with the due process under Sec.3D notification was also duly issued and published in the Gazette of India as per S.O.2855(E) dated 7.12.2012 which governs the properties of the petitioner as well. Hence it is pointed out that by the operation of the statutory provisions of the National Highways Act as per Sec.3D notification, the properties of the petitioner and other persons concerned have been duly vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances. That as per Sec.3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, the fund request submitted by the 3^rd respondent-competent authority for an amount of Rs.65,34,590/- was deposited in the joint account of competent authority, Kozhikode and the Project director, Kozhikode for the distribution

¶45

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶46

-5-

¶47

of award of compensation and the balance amount shall be deposited after the receipt of 2^nd fund request. That the petitioner's land was included in the stretchof kozhikode Bypass which was awarded to the contractor for the construction work as it was

¶48

already got vested by virtue of the Sec.3D notification. Further it is pointed out by respondents 1 & 2 in their statement that Ext.P-4 is not under Sec.3A but it is only a public notice published in two local dailies as per Sec.3G(3) basing the Sec.3D notification S.O.840(E) dated 27.2.2018 for inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. It is submitted that S.O.840(E) dated 27.2.2018 was not a Sec.3A notification but it was Sec.3D notification published in the Government in the Government of India Gazette basing the Sec.3A notification published in the Government of India Gazette as per 3551(E) dated 8.11.2017. Further it is pointed out that the time limit for submission of objections as conceived in Sec.3C is within 21 days from the issuance of Sec.3A notification and that in the

¶49

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶50

-6-

¶51

instant case time line has been expired and all objections received by the competent authority within the prescribed time limit from the date of issuance of Se.3A notification have been disposed. Further it is pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 & 2 that even going by the case set up by the petitioner, he had submitted Ext.P-5 objection dated 20.3.2018 as against Ext.P4 dated 17.3.2017. Further that since the time line has expired long ago after the expiry of 21 days from the issuance of Sec.3A notification, the petitioner does not have a legal right to demand that Ext.P-4 objection should be treated as against Sec.3A notification, since after Sec.3D notification the land in question got vested with the Central Government as per the provisions of the National Highways Act. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that even going by the pleadings of the petitioner, Ext.P-3 is the objection dated 14.12.2017, which is said to have been submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector. In that regard, it is stated that the District

¶52

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶53

-7-

¶54

Collector has no authority or competence in the matter as the jurisdictional competence in this regard is solely vested with the 3^rd respondentcompetent authority. That apart, even Ext.P-3 objection is said to have been submitted after the expiry of the prescribed time limit for submission of Sec.3C objections.

¶55

5. After having heard both sides, this Court is of the view that since the Sec.3A(1) notification was duly issued on 8.11.2017, the stage of the consideration of objection at the stage of Sec.3C has already been over. Moreover, in the instant case, by the flow of time, Sec.3D has also been duly issued and therefore the land now vested with the Central Government by virtue of the provisions contained in the National Highways Act. Ext.P-4 notification dated 17.3.2017 is only a public notice published in 2 dailies as per Sec.3G from persons interested in the acquisition of land. Petitioner's objection in Ext.P-5 is that the very acquisition proceedings as against the his property should be stopped and such objection as per Ext.P-5 cannot be

¶56

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶57

-8-

¶58

considered by the respondents in view of the provisions of the National Highways Act. Ext.P-3 is said to have been submitted by the petitioner is also after the requisite time lime for submitting Sec.3C objections. Moreover, the same is submitted to the District Collector and not to the 3^rd respondent, even as per the case set up by the petitioner. In the light of these factual position, this Court finds that no valid grounds for exercising powers of judicial review are disclosed in this case.

¶59

Accordingly, it is ordered that the Writ Petition will stand dismissed.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

¶62

JUDGE.

¶63

Bkn/-

¶64

WP(C).No. 33913 of 2018

¶65

-9-

¶66

APPENDIX

¶67

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶68

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PWD MINISTER DATED 28.9.2017 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶69

EXHIBIT P2 THE INFORMATION CARD RECEIVED FROM THE P.W.D MINISTER'S OFFICE INFORMING THE PETITIONER THAT THE LETTER DATED 28.9.2017 HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO R1. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 14.12.2017 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 17.3.2017.

¶70

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20.3.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶71

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ON N.H. ALIGNMENT AT CHERTHALA - OCHIRA SECTOR GIVEN IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY ON 21.10.2017.

¶72

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY FO TH NEWS ON N.H.ALIGNMENT AT CHERTHALA - OCHIRA SECTOR GIVEN IN TIMES OF INDIA NEWS DAILY ON 9.12.2016 IN THEIR NET EDITION.

¶73

EXHIBIT P8

¶74

ROAD MAP OF THE SITE OF NH 66 SHOWING THE PLOT OF THE PETITIONER AND WHICH SHOWS HOW THE RESPONDENTS DEVIATED FROM THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT TO HELP THEOWNERS OF PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE.

N.Mohanan v. National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Mohanan v. National Highways Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vasanthakumari Vs District Collector

Meera, Vs Land Tribunal

Thaikandiputhiyapurayil Fathima Vs the Secretary

K.v.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

V.J.Wilson Vs the Coir Inspector, Office of the Coir Inspector

Jose.B.J, Vs the Sub-Registrar