Disposed

Bineesh M.K., v. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India Limited

Kerala HC9 Aug 2021WP(C)/15167/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an eviction notice for structures on a National Highway. The court held pending civil disputes between tenants and landlords do not stall enforcement. The notice recipient must consider the petition representation within ten days.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P7 and take a decision within ten days. Coercive proceedings under Ext.P6 are deferred until decision.

Bineesh M.K., Vs Project Director, National Highway… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

MONDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 BINEESH M.K., AGED 40 YEARS,

¶9

S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, MUKKILAPEEDIKAYIL, AKALAD P.O, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2 SHIHAB M.K, S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, AGED 36 YEARS, MUKKILAPEEDIKAYIL, AKALAD P.O, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. K.MOHANAKANNAN H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA) T.V.NEEMA

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED, PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT NO. 310A, CHANDRANAGAR, EXTENTION, PALAKKAD-678 002.

¶14

2 WALAYAR VADAKKANCHERY EXPRESS WAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, 11/706, PAMPAMPALLAM, ATTAPPALLAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER-678 624.

¶15

3 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, WALAYAR VADAKKANCHERY EXPRESS WAYS PRIVATE LIMITED, 11/706, PAMPAMPALLAM, ATTAPPALLAM, WALAYAR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 621.

¶16

4 SUJEENDRAN S, S/O.SELVARAJ, S.K. HOUSE, AALAMARATH, K.N. PUDOOR, KANCHIKKODE P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 621.

¶17

WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021

¶18

¶19

5 SUDARSAN, S/O. PONNUNNI, S.K. HOUSE, AALAMARATH, K.N. PUDOOR, KANCHIKKODE P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 621.

¶20

BY ADV MATHEWS K.PHILIP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶22

09.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Challenging Ext.P6 notice issued by the Concessionaire calling upon the landlords of a structure to remove unauthorised structures put up by them on the sides of the Four Lane National Highways stretch from Valayar to Vadakkancherry Section, the petitioners, who are the tenants, have approached this Court seeking directions.

¶27

The petitioners contend that they are the proprietors of a hotel by name ‘Moulana Grills’ situated at Alamaram. The said premises were taken on lease from the 5th respondent. They contend that there are disputes between the petitioners and the landlords which are pending before the civil court. While so, Ext.P6 notice issued purportedly under Section 26(2) and 29(4) of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic ) Act, 2002, was served on the owners of the property calling upon them to remove the bunk stall with tin sheet and hotel advertisement board put up on the sides of the National Highway within a period of 15 days. The owners were directed to file their representation within three days of the receipt of the notice. They contend that Ext.P7 representation was submitted stating all relevant aspects. They contend that without considering Ext.P7, steps are being taken by the respondents 1 to 3 to demolish the structures. If the same is done, the persons who would be adversely affected would be the petitioners. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P6 and for

¶28

WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021

¶29

¶30

incidental reliefs.

¶31

Sri. K.Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners shall appear before the respondents 1 to 3 and substantiate their contention that there is no encroachment. The learned counsel prays that necessary directions be issued to keep the demolition proceedings in abeyance till the submissions made by the petitioners are heard and a decision is taken.

¶32

Sri. Mathews K. Philip, the learned standing counsel appearing for the NHAI submitted that the petitioners had put up structures encroaching upon portions of the Four Line National Highway. It is contended that instead of appearing before the respondents 1 to 3 and justifying their action, they have rushed to this Court. Referring to Section 23 of Act 13 of 2003, it is submitted that the Highway Administration has been maintaining a record in the prescribed manner in which the particulars of lands, relating to the Highway, of which the Central Government is the owner, has been entered. The Central Government is deemed to be the owner of lands regarding which entries have been made and any person claiming against such ownership is required to make a written complaint to the Highway Administration and prove his claim. It is for the Highway Administration to consider the evidence made available to correct such records or reject the claim. It is further pointed out that nothing is stated in Ext.P7 to justify that the petitioners have any authority to trespass into portions of the National Highway.

¶33

WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

I have considered the submissions. It appears that the petitioners herein are tenants and there are disputes between them and the landlord. Ext.P6 notice has been issued calling upon the landlords to remove a bunk stall with tin sheet and a hotel advertisement board put up on the sides of the National Highway by encroaching upon the same. Now that Ext.P7 has been preferred in response to Ext.P6 notice, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of directing the competent among respondents to consider Ext.P7 and take a decision in an expeditious manner.

¶36

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P7 and take a decision within a period of ten days from 16.8.2021. It is made clear that the pendency of the suit before the Munsiff Court cannot be taken as a reason to stall the proceedings initiated on the basis of Ext.P6. Till a decision is taken on Ext.P7, coercive proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 shall be deferred.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 15167 OF 2021 6

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15167/2021

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED DEPARTMENT IN THE PETITIONER.	SANITARY FITNESS 27.5.2019, BY THE HEALTH NAME OF THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE EMPLOYEES DATED 5.7.2019.	REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BY THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE FILE OF THE MUNSI APPLICATION FOR I	PLAINT OS 263/2020 ON THE FF COURT, PALAKKAD AND NJUNCTION.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COURT, PALAKKAD D 263/2020 (DAILY S	PROCEEDINGS OF THE MUNSIFF ATED 1.7.2020 IN OS TATUS).
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER AN 10.03.2021.	AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE D THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND 14.06.2021.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE 1ST PETITI RESPONDENT DATED	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ONER BEFORE THE 1ST 23.7.2021.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE HIGHWAYS (LAND AN	CONTROL OF NATIONAL D TRAFFIC) ACT, 2002.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE THE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTIONS EFF AND THE ADJACENT	PHOTOGRAPHS WHICH SHOWS NATURE OF THE ECTED BY THE PETITIONER BUILDINGS.

¶44

RESPONDENTS'S EXHIBITS: NIL

Bineesh M.K., v. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bineesh M.K., v. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India Limited

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

Nandakumar, Vs the Tahasildar (L.R.)

Joseph Scaria Vs the District Collector,Idukki

Dr.Sandra Sunny, Vs Director General of Police Kerala

Kamalam S, Vs the Spacial Tahasildar

A.Arunachalam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Kuttan Vs State of Kerala