Kerala High Court
K.Sivadasan vs The Special Tahsildar (La) on 28 May, 2019
Author: Hrishikesh Roy
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1941
WA.No. 1283 of 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 41320/2018 dt. 06.02.2019
APPELLANTS:
1 K.SIVADASAN,AGED 56 YEARS,S/O. BHASKARAN, ASWAS,
NETTUR, THALASSEERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 K.P. KAMALA, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN, KAMALAYALAM,
NETTUR POST, THALASSERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, MINI
CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KANNUR 670 001.
3 THE ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF
KERALA LTD., M.V. ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
CHENNAI 600 003.
5 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAY, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
6 THE ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY
COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION MINI CIVIL STATION,
THALASSERY 670 105, KANNUR DISTRICT.
R1, 2, BY ADVS. SRI. K. V. SHOHAN, STATE ATTORNEY`
5 & 6
R3 SRI. SYSON P. MANGUZHA, STANDING COUNSEL
R4 SRI. C. S. DIAS, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 1283 of 2019
2
JUDGMENT
Hrishikesh Roy, C. J.
Heard Sri. M. Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/Writ Petitioner. Sri. K. V. Sohan, the learned State Attorney is representing the respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6. Sri. Shyson P. Manguzha, the learned standing counsel for the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation [3rd respondent]. The learned standing counsel Sri. C. S. Dias is appearing for the Southern Railway [respondent No. 4].
2. The matter pertains to the objection to the alignment for construction of the Railway Overbridge at Koduvally, connecting Thalassery and Koothuparamba area. The second petitioner is the owner of the land in Survey No. 21/8A and together with the first petitioner, they sought realignment of railway overbridge to avoid certain portion of the property of the second petitioner. Since the suggested alignment by the petitioners was not accepted culminating in the Government decision dated 27.11.2018 [Ext. P12], the same came to be challenged by the aggrieved parties, through the W.P.(C) No.41320 of 2018.
3. The petitioners contend that Ext. P12 decision was mechanically taken without adverting to the objections raised by the petitioners on the improper alignment of the railway overbridge. Moreover there was no occasion for the WA.No. 1283 of 2019 3 authorities to look at the alternative alignment suggested by the petitioners.
4. However it was projected by the State Government in the counter affidavit that the Railway's project at Koduvally was finalized as early as on 15.06.2013, after conducting an extensive study by the Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (KITCO), as authorised by the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation [3rd respondent]. The alignment plan was approved by the Engineering team of the Raiway, who considered the safety and engineering aspects, in conformity with the Indian Railways Bridge Manual. Of the total extent of property required, 22 persons were in occupation of 63.95 Ares. Amongst them two persons had encroached on purambokke property. The first petitioner was not having any property in the proposed alignment and the second petitioner Smt. K.P. Kamala was having an extent of 5.59 Ares of property. Out of the 22 land owners, including the purambokke land occupiers, the consent letters were given by 17 surrendering their properties for the railway overbridge. In fact, the second petitioner had also given her consent, as can be seen from Ext. R5(c).
5. The learned Judge next noted that it would not be right and proper to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction so as to interfere with a matter touching upon public project, which necessitates acquisition of property for construction of a railway overbridge. As to the correctness or otherwise of the alignment of railway overbridge, the Court found that the decision on alignment was arrived at, WA.No. 1283 of 2019 4 through studies by group of experts, including social impact assessment study. Even thereafter, when a revisit to the initial alignment was suggested by Ext. P7, the Government arranged for constitution of a committee on 30.04.2018. This committee included two social scientists, two public representatives, two experts on rehabilitation. After a thorough study made by the Committee, it was determined that the decided alignment is suitable for the railway overbridge and alternative acquisition would not be feasible. Moreover, such alignment would not cause any adverse impact on the enviornment and will not affect any agricultural property. It is thus clear that the alternative alignment suggested by the writ petitioners were taken into account in the Ext. P12 deliberations but it was found that such alignment will cause additional expenses and will result in high traffic in the junction and same would badly affect the existing kandal (mangrove). On this basis, the Writ Court declined to interfere with the Ext.P12 decision. Consequently, the Writ Petition No. 41320 of 2018 was dismissed, as per the impugned judgment dated 06.02.2019.
6. The judgment of the Writ Court has been read by us and the contentions raised by the Appellants and the State Attorney have been taken into consideration. According to our perception, the objection raised by the writ petitioners received a fair consideration in the Ext.P12 proceedings. The alternative alignment suggested by the Writ Petitioners were found to be not feasible and will also involve additional expenditures. Besides, the impact on WA.No. 1283 of 2019 5 environment, as is shown in the Ext. P12 decision, was also factored in.
7. In the above circumstances, the learned Judge, according to us, rightly declined to grant any relief in the Writ Petition. The Appeal is therefore found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
THE HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
kmd JUDGE