Kerala High Court
K.J.James vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2025
Author: Murali Purushothaman
Bench: Murali Purushothaman
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 1 :
2025:KER:86
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025/16TH POUSHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 K.J.JAMES, AGED 61 YEARS
KANDARAPALLIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603.
2 ALEX THAYYIL, THAYYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603.
BY ADVS.
P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
K.P.SUDHEER
ANJALI MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
3 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THRIUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION,
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
*ADDL. MANJOOR VIKASANA SAMITHY, KURUPPUMTHARA,
R4 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR.JOHN PAUL,
RESIDING AT THENGUMPALLY,
KURUPPUMTHARA, MANJOOR P.O.,
PIN - 686 603.
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 2 :
2025:KER:86
(*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20-10-2021 IN IA
1/2021.)
*ADDL. ROADS AND BRIDGES CORPORATION OF KERALA, LTD.,
R5 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V.ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 024.
(*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02-11-2021 IN IA
2/2021.)
*ADDL. MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
R6 MANJOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 603
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
(*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.07.2022 IN IA
NO.4/2022).
SMT. N.SUDHA DEVI - SPL.GP
R2 - SRI. M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED - SC, RAILWAYS
SRI. BINU MATHEW
SRI. K.V.MANOJ KUMAR
R6 - JUSTIN JACOB - SC
SRI. N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI
SMT. RESMITHA.R.CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
06.11.2023, THE COURT ON 06.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 3 :
2025:KER:86
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are residents of Kuruppanthara in the Kottayam District. According to them, a Railway Over Bridge (ROB) was constructed in Kuruppanthara in 2017 on the Muttuchira-Kuruppanthara Road by demolishing the old bridge and incurring a significant expense. Now, steps are being taken to construct a new ROB just 200 meters away from the one built in 2017 causing severe hardships to several people including the petitioners, such as the loss of residence, property, and business. It is stated that there is one more over bridge on the other side within a distance of 1 kilometer and that, by the construction of the new ROB, the first petitioner and his family would be deprived of a property having an extent of 0.0228 Ares WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 4 : 2025:KER:86 in Sy. No. 199/11 and 12 with a portion of their residential property and the second petitioner would be deprived of 0.0050 Ares of land in Sy. No.711/9 and his residence.
2. According to the petitioners, construction of a new ROB within a distance of 200 meters of the existing one is totally irrational and driven by ulterior motives. It is contended that the acquisition of land for the construction of the new ROB does not conform to the statutory prescriptions under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RFCTLARR Act').
3. The District Collector, Kottayam, the 2nd Respondent, issued Ext. P1 notification dated 20.05.2019 under Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 5 : 2025:KER:86 authorizing one Anitha C. Chacko to conduct Social Impact Assessment Study and to prepare a Social Impact Management Plan, as provided by the RFCTLARR Act. Accordingly, Ext. P2 Social Impact Assessment Report was submitted on 19.09.2019. The petitioners contend that Ext. P2 Report is severely flawed due to a lack of proper consultation with the affected people, insufficient notice, and limited participation. The survey was conducted haphazardly, interviewing only a few selected individuals. The Report failed to address crucial aspects outlined in the RFCTLARR Act, focusing instead on general observations about the locality and nearby religious institutions. There has been no study of the social impact caused by the acquisition nor the necessity of acquisition itself was examined.
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 6 :
2025:KER:86
4. The petitioners who are also the President and the Secretary of the Action Council formed for opposing the project submitted Ext. P3 objection against Ext. P2 Report to the District Collector. However, without considering the same, an Expert Committee was constituted which on evaluation approved Ext.P2 as per Ext.P4 report. It is contended that there were only 6 members in the Expert Committee as against the prescription of 7 members in the RFCTLARR Act.
5. The petitioners state that Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act clearly outlines the matters to be examined by the Expert Committee and the approach they must adopt. However, Ext. P4 demonstrates that the Section 7 proceedings have been rendered a mockery, with no evidence of application of mind. The WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 7 : 2025:KER:86 fundamental question whether the project serves any public purpose has not been addressed by the experts. The necessity of an over bridge, when two already exist on either side, was not considered by the expert committee. It is also contended that the said report was not publicized in the affected areas or among the affected parties nor was the report forwarded to the Panchayat and the Grama Sabha.
6. The petitioners refer to Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act which provides that the appropriate Government shall also ensure that there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose, the potential benefits and the public purpose referred to shall outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact etc. It is contended that the appropriate Government failed to ensure these aspects.
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 8 :
2025:KER:86
7. Based on Exts. P2 and P4 reports, Ext. P5 preliminary notification dated 24.05.2020 was issued by the District Collector under Sub Section (1) of Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners submitted Ext. P6 representation to the District Collector and to the Minister for Public Works. It is submitted that the said representation ought to have been dealt with by the Collector as provided under Section 15 of the RFCTLARR Act. However, no action was taken by the District Collector and the petitioners submitted Ext. P7 representation to the Minister for Public works.
8. The expert committee report was published on the website only on 27.05.2020. However, Section 11 notification was issued on 24.05.2020, i.e., prior to the publication of the expert committee's report on WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 9 : 2025:KER:86 website. According to the petitioners, as per the RFCTLARR Act, the report must be circulated in the locality and published on the website. Only thereafter the examination of the proposal for land acquisition and Social Impact Assessment Report by the appropriate Government has to take place. It is therefore contended that, before the publication of the expert committee's report, Section 11 notification could not have been issued by the appropriate Government.
9. The petitioners state that the existing ROB was built only in 2017 after demolishing an old over bridge and the present ROB is sought to be constructed within a distance of 200 meters from the said ROB. The petitioners refer to Ext.P8 photograph and state that constructing a road from the area in question to the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 10 : 2025:KER:86 existing over bridge would have been the appropriate solution, if indeed any problem exists there on account of the railway crossing and even the level crossing can be closed. The petitioners also refer to Ext. P9 report of a retired Superintending Engineer which would show that the construction of a road to the existing over bridge can be completed by expending Six Crores of Rupees whereas the cost of new over bridge would come to Sixty Six Crores of Rupees. It is also contended that there is no valid No Objection Certificate issued by the Railways for the appropriate Government to go on with the proceedings. It is contended that the action of the respondents is extremely arbitrary, unreasonable and oppressive and it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 11 :
2025:KER:86 Accordingly, the petitioners seek to quash the entire proceedings initiated as per Exts. P2 and P4 reports and Ext. P5 preliminary notification. A direction is sought to the respondents to drop the project of building an additional ROB at Kuruppanthara as it is superfluous and unnecessary.
10. This Court by order dated 13.09.2021 directed the Indian Railways not to take any further action without orders from this Court.
11. Initially, State of Kerala, the District Collector and the Divisional Manager, Southern Railway alone were arrayed as respondents. Later, the Manjoor Vikasana Samithy, the Roads and Bridges Corporation of Kerala and Manjoor Grama Panchayat got themselves impleaded in the writ petition as additional respondents and filed counter affidavits in opposition WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 12 : 2025:KER:86 to the averments in the writ petition.
12. A counter affidavit dated 10.11.2021 and an additional affidavit dated 14.08.2023 have been filed by the 2nd respondent, the District Collector. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is inexplicable delay in filing the writ petition challenging the impugned notification. It is also contended that the petitioners' attempt is to thwart a project conceptualized in the public interest. Even though petitioners claim that through several members of the public other than those identified in Ext. P2 report are affected, none of them have approached this Court challenging the project or the acquisition. Furthermore, it is contended that the petitioners have not been able to bring forth any material that can disprove the correctness of the expert assessment of the necessity WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 13 : 2025:KER:86 and viability of the impugned project, other than a self-serving report commissioned by them and this Court cannot sit in appeal against the discretion and wisdom of the executive in choosing and implementing a project in public interest. The 2nd respondent denies the petitioners' contentions based on statutory prescriptions as not sustainable. It is stated that, contrary to what is claimed by the petitioners, Ext. P2 report addresses every aspect that is enumerated in Section 4 of RFCTLARR Act. In Chapter IV of the Report, the names of both the petitioners are shown as affected parties and the loss caused to the petitioners is recognized and is assured of being compensated under the RFCTLARR Act. In Ext. P3 complaint, though the 1st petitioner and three others have claimed to be the owners of a matchbox production unit who are WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 14 : 2025:KER:86 allegedly affected by the project, those persons have not joined the petitioners' cause, nor has the 1st petitioner raised any claim for damages to the said unit in the writ petition. However, Ext. P2 report refers to damage anticipated to commercial and industrial units which has been prepared after direct consultation with their owners. The counter affidavit states that the petitioners' allegation that the affected population has not been consulted is baseless and is contradicted by the report itself. The report shows how it has addressed every issue that the petitioners allege it to be silent on.
13. The counter affidavit further states that the Government of Kerala have accorded Administrative sanction for the construction of Kuruppanthara ROB vide GO (Rt) No. 942/2017/PWD dated 10.07.2017. WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 15 :
2025:KER:86 The Managing Director, Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala submitted a requisition to the District Collector for acquiring an extent of 0.8110 Hectares of land comprised in various survey numbers of Block No.33 of Manjoor Village of Vaikom Taluk in Kottayam District. Accordingly, the Special Tahasildar LA (General), Pala was posted as the Land Acquisition Officer for the above acquisition vide Proceedings No. DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 dated 20.09.2018. The Revenue (B) Department also has accorded sanction for the above land acquisition vide GO (Rt) No.1069/2019/RD dated 04.05.2019. Ext. P1 notification under Section 4(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was issued authorizing Smt. Anitha C. Chacko to conduct Social impact Assessment Study. It is stated that the notification was made available in all the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 16 : 2025:KER:86 places prescribed in Section 4 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act. The final report of the SIA Study was submitted after conducting a public hearing which was held at Manjoor Grama Panchayat Conference Hall on 16.08.2019. The report was also made available in all the places prescribed in Section 6(1) of the RFCTLARR Act. As per Section 7(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, an Expert Group to evaluate the SIA Study report was constituted vide Proceedings No. DCK/ 7162/ 2018/G1 dated 29.10.2019. After examining and considering all the reports and the recommendations, the report submitted by the Expert Group was approved vide Proceedings No.DCKTM/ 7162/ 2018/ G1 dated 16.01.2020. The Land Acquisition Officer has reported that the report of the Expert Group was made available in all the places as prescribed under the RFCTLARR WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 17 : 2025:KER:86 Act. Ext. P3 representation of the petitioners which does not bear a date was received in the office of the District Collector only on 05.03.2020. The preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was approved by the District Collector, Kottayam on 24.05.2020 vide Ext. P5 and the same was published in the Gazette on 16.07.2020. The 2nd respondent, along with the additional affidavit dated 14.08.2023, has produced Exts. R2(e) to R2(h) documents to show that all the concerned officers have published the expert committee report and the decision of the appropriate Government approving the expert committee report as mandated under Sections 7(6) and 8(3) of the RFCTLARR Act. It is also stated that the preliminary notification was published in all the places mentioned in Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 18 : 2025:KER:86 Act.
14. The counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent further states that, in order to determine the extent of the land to be acquired, the land was surveyed and the survey Sub Division records were prepared. Presently, action is under way to prepare the Basic Valuation Report for the land and the building. Steps for the preparation of Rehabilitation and resettlement package by the Administrator under Section 16 of the RFCTLARR Act are also being taken. An extent of 0.0128 Hectares of land in Survey No.199/11-5 and 0.0030 Hectares of land in Survey No.199/11-6 of the first petitioner and an extent of 0.0043 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No.711/9-1 of the second petitioner are included in the acquisition proceedings for Kuruppanthara ROB.
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 19 :
2025:KER:86
15. In the additional affidavit dated 14.08.2023 filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that Ext. P5 preliminary notification was published in the extra ordinary gazette dated 16.07.2020, even though the same was approved on 24.05.2020. The publication of the expert committee report in the website was on 27.05.2020. It is contended that when the expert committee report was published on time in all other relevant places, the belated publication in the website of the District Collector cannot vitiate the proceedings. It is further stated that the Expert Committee consisted of seven members as stipulated in the RFCTLARR Act. It is also stated that, at present, awards have been passed in 61 LA cases out of 68 cases and on account of the status quo order passed by this Court on 08.12.2022, the amount of WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 20 : 2025:KER:86 compensation could not be disbursed to the land owners.
16. A statement as well as a counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent wherein it is stated that for the construction of an ROB in place of Level Cross No.22 at kilometer 41/128 in the Kuruppanthara yard of the Ernakulam-Kottayam Section, the land acquisitions are being carried out by the State Government, and the work is being undertaken by the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala. It is the national policy of the Government of India to construct ROBs in place of level crossings once the Train-Vehicle Unit passes more than one lakh units. It is stated that every year, the Railways will advise the concerned State Government of the list of level crossings where the Total Vehicle Units exceed one WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 21 : 2025:KER:86 lakh. The work is undertaken by the Railways and the State Government in cost sharing basis of 50: 50. It is stated that a national policy has been formulated by the Government of India to eliminate all level crossings either by construction of ROB, Rail under Bridge etc., whichever is the feasible method. The Train-Vehicle Unit of Level Cross No.22 was 1,45,948 in the year 2021, exceeding the railway norm of 1.0 Lakh, making it eligible for an ROB as per the national policy of Government of India and railway safety policy. Accordingly, Level Cross No.22 is identified by the Railways and sanctioned for conversion into an ROB on cost sharing basis. The level crossing in a railway system is identified as an unsafe feature, and any accident at a level crossing is likely to be fatal and must be eliminated. It is further stated that, being a WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 22 : 2025:KER:86 level crossing in the station yard, the closure of gate will be more, and the precious time of the public will be wasted, which will be a national loss. Furthermore, any medical emergency vehicles heading to Kottayam Medical College or similar destinations will not be able to cross the level crossing, even in cases of emergency. The road over bridge already constructed was a reconstruction of the old bridge on the single- line track, rebuilt as part of the track doubling project to accommodate two tracks, approximately 300 meters north of this level crossing. Constructing a parallel road to the nearby ROB would require acquiring a significant portion of land, including houses, agricultural lands and shops, resulting in considerable expense and wastage of time by traveling the additional distance. Furthermore, it is stated that extra-strong barricades WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 23 : 2025:KER:86 will be necessary between the road and the track to prevent vehicles from accidentally entering the track. Further, junction improvements near existing ROB, would be required. ROB No.356, mentioned by the petitioners, was reconstructed as part of the railway doubling project. It is situated approximately 300 meters away from the subject level crossing and is located on a different road. The ROB at Kuruppanthara is being constructed in lieu of level crossing No.22 at railway Km 41/100-200 between Vaikom road and Kuruppanthara railway station. It is stated that it is the policy of the Railways to construct ROB/Road Under Bridge for elimination of Level Crossings on consideration of safety of public and maintenance/operation of Level Crossings and that the construction of the ROB is useful for the public for easy WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 24 : 2025:KER:86 movement without waiting at the level cross.
17. The 4th respondent, the Manjoor Vikasana Samithi, an unregistered association of people from Manjoor and nearby panchayats, states that its main objective is to bring the ROB to fruition, in place of level crossing at Kuruppanthara, which currently divides the Manjoor Panchayat into two parts, and to ensure free movement of people and vehicles to the adjoining five panchayats. The Samithi, in its counter affidavit, states that the proposed ROB would ensure the right to free movement of people and vehicles from the adjoining five panchayats, as well as the general public using the State Highway No. 40 for various purposes. The proposed ROB would replace Gate Level Crossing No.22, located in Kuruppanthara, which is currently closed for long hours each day to WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 25 : 2025:KER:86 allow train traffic to pass. The entire State Highway and the by-roads get jammed due to the railway gate being closed for hours, with vehicles queuing up for kilometers. Considering these factors, the Manjoor Grama Panchayat, the Kuruvilangad Grama Panchayat, the Kallar Grama Panchayat, and various organizations have passed resolutions in support of the proposed construction of an ROB at the railway crossing in Kuruppanthara. It is stated that the writ petition is filed at a belated stage. Though there are about 49 land owners whose properties are being acquired for the purpose of the ROB construction, only two individuals have filed this writ petition claiming that a small portion of their land will be acquired for the project. It is stated that the entire population of five villages, including those whose lands are to be WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 26 : 2025:KER:86 acquired, ardently supports the ROB and that the contentions of the petitioners in the writ petition are without any basis and are against larger public interest. The contentions of the petitioners on merits are also traversed in the counter affidavit.
18. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent, the Roads and Bridges Corporation of Kerala Ltd. It will be apposite to extract paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:-
"5. The brief facts leading to the present case are as follows:
i. The proposed Railway Over Bridge at Kuruppanthara is in Alappuzha-Madurai Road (State Highway 40), which intersects State Highway 15 (Ettumanoor-Ernakulam road) at Kuruppanthara junction. The level crossing which lies in between Kadathuruthy and Ettumanoor stations has a Train Vehicle Unit (TVU) of 1.19 lakhs during 2015 (Annexure) and now it comes to around 1.45 lakhs (Annexure 2) which is more than Railway's norms of 1.0 lakh and hence the Level Crossing should be WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 27 : 2025:KER:86 replaced with Railway Over Bridge. The value of Train Vehicle Unit at Kuruppanthara Level Crossing, which is the product of number of gate closures and the vehicles per day, is 1,45,948.5 (Note: As per the relevant railway norms a level crossing becomes eligible to have over bridge, if the Train Vehicle Unit there is above one lakh. Moreover, replacing Level Crossings with Railway Over Bridges are a government policy in view of railway safety and ideally all level crossings are to be replaced with Railway Over Bridges). From this, it is clear that most of the vehicles are passing through the level crossing of Kuruppanthara. The existing over bridge which the petitioners mention is in an alley/by-road and the vehicles passing through this bridge is significantly lower in number.
ii. That, during the gate closure at peak hours at Kuruppanthara, the long queue of the vehicles waiting at the level crossing leads to traffic congestion at Kuruppanthara junction and the nearby town. This has become a serious issue of public concern and various individuals, social organizations and the local self government began raising the issue through demonstrations and representations to the various levels of Government functionaries. Many panchayaths whose residents are affected by the traffic congestion and delay passed resolutions highlighting the necessity of WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 28 : 2025:KER:86 constructing a railway over bridge at Kuruppamthara. A true copy of the resolution dated 29/12/2016 passed by Kuravilangad Grama panchayath is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R5(a). A true copy of the resolution dated 30/12/2016 passed by Kallara (Vaikam) Gramapanchayath is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(b). A true copy of the decision dated 31/12/2016 of the meeting of Uzhavoor block panchayath is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(c). A true copy of the representation dated 03/01/2017 submitted by the Sccretary, Manjoor Gramapanchayath to the Chairman, Development Council, Kuruppamthara is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(d). A true copy of the representation submitted by the Kerala State Pensioners Union, Manjoor Unit on 07/01/2017 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(e). A true copy of the representation submitted by the social organization, N.S.S. Karayogam, Manjoor P.O. to the Government on 09/01/2017 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(f). A true copy of the representation submitted by the social organization, S.N.D.P Yogam, Kuruppanthara to the Government on 25/01/2014 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(g).
iii. That, seeing the utmost public importance of the grievance raised by the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 29 : 2025:KER:86 inhabitants, the Government of Kerala vide GO. (Rt) No.942/2017/PWD dtd.
10.07.2017 have appointed the answering respondent-Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Limited (RBDCK) -as special purpose vehicle (SPV) for the construction of Kuruppanthara Railway Over Bridge in lieu of Level Crossing No.22 at Kuruppanthara in Kottayam district using funds from Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB). A true copy of G.O.(Rt) No.942/2017/PWD dated 10/07/2017 with annexure is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(h). The construction of Railway Over Bridge in lieu of Level Crossing no.22 (at km 41/100-
200) at Kuruppanthara in Kadathuruthy constituency was included in the Budget speech 2017-2018. The work was already included in the Railway work programme for the year 2013-14.
iv. The Detailed Project Report was submitted before Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board for approval. Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board Chief Executive Officer as per its order No.PWD-016-03-PA-01 dated 07.06.2018 had sanctioned an amount of Rs.30.56 crore as project cost including land acquisition cost. The above order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R5(i).
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 30 :
2025:KER:86 v. The requisition for land acquisition was submitted to District Collector, Kottayam on 10.07.2018 for an extent of 0.8130 hectares in various Survey No.'s of Block 33 of Manjoor Village, Vykkam Taluk in Kottayam District. Accordingly, the District Collector, Kottayam appointed the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) General, Pala as the Land Acquisition Officer for the above acquisition. As per GO No. (Rt) no 1069/2019/RD dated 04.05.2019 administrative sanction for land acquisition was accorded by the Revenue Department. vi. That, the District Collector appointed Smt.Anitha C. Chacko, Manavath Karott, Neericode, Kottayam for conducting Social Impact Assessment study as per proceedings No.DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 dated 25.04.2019 and issued as 4(1) notification in Kerala Gazette No.29 dated 16.07.2019. A true copy of the 4(1) notification dated 16.07.2019 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(j). The notification was made available in all places as prescribed in Section 4(1) of the Act. Accordingly the Social Impact Study unit had conducted detailed survey and field verification and submitted its draft report on 08.01.2020 and this was published as per the provisions of law. viii. The Social Impact Study unit had conducted public hearing held at Manjoor Grama Panchayat conference hall as per law under Section 5 of 2013 Act on WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 31 : 2025:KER:86 16.08.2019 after lawfully publishing notice in form No.5 as per Rule 14(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Kerala Rules, 2015. A true copy of the Form 5 notice dated 26.07.2019 and notice dated 09.08.2019 are produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(k) and EXHIBIT R5(l) respectively. In the public hearing MP, MLA, Gramapanchayat President, District Panchayat member and other elected representatives, Government Officials, public, property owners and heirs representing the land owners had actively participated. A true copy of the attendance sheet of the hearing held on 16/08/2019 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(m). It is evident from SI. No.'s 12 and 33 of this hearing list that both the petitioners were present for the hearing.
viii. The Social Impact Study unit had submitted its final report to the District Collector and the Land Acquisition officer had lawfully published it. A true copy of the Social Impact Study is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT R5(n). The Social Impact Study unit had concluded the report stating that "By the completion of proposed Kurupanthara Railway Over Bridge, the decade's long needs of people are resolved. This project avoids the traffic problems of this region. The time & money loss and traffic jams WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 32 : 2025:KER:86 can be avoided here. The completion of Kurupanthara Railway Over Bridge is necessary". Hence the public purpose is proved by the report.
ix. As per section 7 of 2013 Act, the District Collector, Kottayam appointed the Expert Committee consisting 7 members as per proceedings No.DCKTM/7162/2018-G1 dated 29.10.2019. The expert committee had evaluated the Social Impact Study report and submitted its report to the District Collector. The expert committee had approved the land acquisition proceedings and recommended collector to complete it as early as possible after determining Rehabilitation and Resettlement packages and issuing compensations considering the public interest of the project. A true copy of the Expert Committee report is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(o). The Expert Committee had submitted its report stating that "the location identified for the proposed Rail Over Bridge is found suitable and social impacts of the project is comparatively less. The affected persons agreed for land acquisition, if they get adequate compensation". It also stated that "the SIA agency had done extensive survey and interactions with affected persons and has identified the major concerns of the people. All the stated objectives and aims of the Social Impact Study are duly addressed in the report. It can be WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 33 : 2025:KER:86 concluded that the project will be beneficial to the public and the potential benefits of the project outweigh the social cost and adverse social impact. Hence the committee strongly recommends for the acquisition of the specified land". x. After evaluating the Social Impact Study final report and Expert committee report, the District Collector, Kottayam Satisfied with the report had issued order u/s.8 of 2013 Act vide proceedings No.DCKTM/7161/2018/G1 dated 16.01.2020. A true copy of proceedings No.DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 Gated 16.01.2020 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(p). Section 11(1) notification was published in Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No's.1700 dated 16.07.2020 and 1436 dated 15.04.2021. A true copy of Section 11(1) notification published in Kerala Gazette Extra Ordinary No's.1700 dated 16.07.2020 and 1436 dated 15.04.2021 are produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(q), and EXHIBIT -R5(r). xi. On the basis of the 11(1) notification, the Land Acquisition Officer conducted detailed scientific land survey and the land acquisition sub divisions were approved by Survey Superintendent. Basic valuation report for the land and valuation for the building were completed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Rehabilitation and resettlement package eligible for the affected persons were sanctioned by the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 34 : 2025:KER:86 Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram vide proceedings No.LR/7512/2021/ LR(C3) dated 28/05/2022 u/s.18 of the 2013 Act. A true copy of the proceedings No.LR/7512/2021/LR(C3) dated 28/05/2022 is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(s).
xii. On the request of the Land Acquisition Officer, the land acquisition cost of Rs.8,44,46,558/- and Rs.10,81,655/- were also released to the Land Acquisition Officer on 06.04.2022 and 16.11.2022 respectively. These letters are produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(t) and EXHIBIT-R5(u).
Subsequently declaration under section 19(1) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act 2013 had published by the District Collector, Kottayam on 14.07.2022 in Kerala Extra Ordinary Gazette No.2343. This 19(1) declaration is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5 (v).
xiii. At present, the land acquisition process has progressed up to the award stage after duly completing all procedures as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency In Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation And Resettlement Act 2013. The General Agreement Drawing also got approval from the railways on 07/03/2023. A true copy of the approved General Agreement Drawing is produced herewith and marked as EXHIBIT-R5(w)."
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 35 :
2025:KER:86 It is stated that the proposed ROB is in the State Highway which connects three prominent Districts of the State; namely, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki. It is stated that the old over bridge referred to in the writ petition was not on a railway level cross but over a low lying railway line. The same is not even a bus route. The construction of the present ROB will serve a larger public interest. It is further stated that the private interest of the petitioners cannot prevail over the larger public interest of the inhabitants of the affected area to have a proper ROB replacing the existing level cross.
19. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent, Manjoor Grama Panchayat. It is stated that the proposed ROB is highly required to ease traffic and for the development of locality and the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 36 : 2025:KER:86 existing ROB can never be an alternative for the proposed ROB.
20. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavits of respondents 3, 5 and 6. The petitioners have denied the averments made by respondents 3 and 5 regarding traffic in the area where the new ROB is proposed, stating that the heavy traffic density was due to the construction of the Manjoor ROB, which was completed in 2022 and the Train-Vehicle Unit assessment mentioned in the counter-affidavit of Southern Railway was conducted during the reconstruction period of that ROB. Referring to the averments in the counter affidavit of the 3 rd respondent, the petitioners state that since ROB No.356 was reconstructed as part of the track doubling project, the width of the ROB has been doubled and WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 37 : 2025:KER:86 the road over which the new ROB is proposed can be easily connected to the road where ROB No.356 is constructed. It is contended that the Panchayats and social organisations which passed resolutions and sent representations demanding ROB have no say in the matter.
21. Heard Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, Smt.M.Sudha Devi, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Sri.Daya Sindhu Shree Hari, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri.Binu Mathew, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Smt.Resmitha R.Chandran, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent.
22. The circumstances leading to the issuance of WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 38 : 2025:KER:86 impugned Ext. P5 preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, as evident from the pleadings, are as follows: The proposed ROB at Kuruppanthara, located at the intersection of State Highway 40 (Alappuzha-Madurai Road) and State Highway 15 (Ettumanoor-Ernakulam Road), is intended to replace the level crossing between Kadathuruthy and Ettumanoor stations. According to respondents 3 and 5, the Train Vehicle Unit at this level crossing has increased recently to 1.45 lakhs, exceeding the railway norm of 1.0 lakh, making it eligible for an ROB as per railway safety policy. During peak hours, gate closures at the level crossing cause long vehicle queues, resulting in traffic congestion in the area delaying even medical emergency vehicles heading to Kottayam Medical College or other critical destinations. WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 39 :
2025:KER:86 Accordingly, the local residents, various social organizations and nearby Local Self Governments raised the demand for an ROB to replace the level crossing, through demonstrations, representations, and resolutions submitted to various Government authorities. Taking note of the grievance raised, the Government of Kerala appointed the 5th respondent, the Roads and Bridges Corporation of Kerala Ltd. as Special Purpose Vehicle for the construction of Kuruppanthara ROB to replace Level Crossing No.22 at Kuruppanthara. The District Collector issued Ext. P1 notification dated 20.05.2019 under Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act authorizing to conduct Social Impact Assessment study and to prepare a Social Impact Management Plan. Ext. P2 Social Impact Assessment Report was submitted on 19.09.2019. An Expert WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 40 : 2025:KER:86 Committee was constituted under Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act and they evaluated Ext. P2 Social Impact Assessment Report and submitted Ext. P4 report approving Ext. P2 report. Based on Exts. P2 and P4 reports, Ext. P5 preliminary notification dated 24.05.2020 was issued by the District Collector under Sub Section (1) of Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act. Ext. P5 notification was published in Kerala Gazette dated 16.07.2020, as seen from Ext. R5(q). Later, Ext. R5(v) declaration under section 19(1) of the RFCTLARR Act was published by the District Collector on 14.07.2022 in the Gazette. The land acquisition process has progressed up to the award stage. This Court has passed an order of status quo on 08.12.2022.
23. The primary contention of the petitioners is WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 41 : 2025:KER:86 that the proposed ROB is unnecessary, as there is an existing ROB nearby, within a distance of 200 meters. It is contended that, by the construction of the new ROB, the petitioners will be deprived of their property. It is further contended that constructing a road on the side way of the railway line leading to the existing over bridge would have been the appropriate solution for the problems that exist on account of the railway crossing.
24. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Southern Railway, it is stated that the Government of India's national policy mandates replacing level crossings with ROBs, rail under bridges, or other feasible methods once the Train-Vehicle Unit exceeds one lakh. Railways annually inform State Governments about such eligible level crossings, and the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 42 : 2025:KER:86 construction is carried out on a 50:50 cost sharing basis. Level Cross No. 22, with a Train-Vehicle Unit of 1,45,948 in 2021, surpasses this prescribed limit and has been sanctioned for conversion into an ROB under the national and railway safety policies. Level crossings are considered unsafe, prone to fatal accidents, and cause delays, including for emergency vehicles, leading to considerable public inconvenience and wastage of time. The counter affidavits filed by the respondents indicate that the residents of the locality have long been demanding for an ROB to replace the level crossing. Adjoining Panchayats and various social organizations have also supported this demand through representations and resolutions submitted to various authorities. The proposed ROB is in the State Highway which connects three prominent Districts of WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 43 : 2025:KER:86 the State; namely, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Idukki. From the above facts, it is evident that the construction of the ROB serves a public purpose and acquisition for the construction of ROB is definitely a public purpose. The contention of the petitioners that the proposed ROB is unnecessary and unwanted cannot be sustained.
25. According to the petitioners, there is already an ROB within a distance of 200 meters from the proposed ROB and constructing a road on the side way of the railway line leading to the existing over bridge is more than enough to solve all problems and the level crossing can be closed. The Southern Railway in their counter affidavit has stated that constructing a parallel road to the existing ROB would require acquiring a substantial quantity of land, including houses, WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 44 : 2025:KER:86 agricultural lands and shops, resulting in considerable expenses. Further, extra travelling time will be required as the ROB is located on a different road. It is also stated that extra strong barricades would be necessary between the road and the track to prevent vehicles from accidentally entering the track. It also states that further junction improvements near existing ROB will be required. The Roads and Bridges Corporation of Kerala Ltd., in their counter affidavit, has stated that the old over bridge mentioned by the writ petitioners was not on a railway level cross, but over a low lying railway line and the same is not even a bus route, whereas the proposed ROB is in the State Highway. When experts in the field state that the existing railway over bridge cannot serve as an alternative to the proposed ROB, this Court cannot sit in appeal over WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 45 : 2025:KER:86 their decision.
26. The next contention of the petitioners is that the entire proceedings culminating in the issuance of Ext. P5 notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act are vitiated by fatal flaws and do not conform to the statutory prescriptions. Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act deals with preparation of Social Impact Assessment Study. Section 5 deals with public hearing for Social Impact Assessment, which states that whenever a Social Impact Assessment is required to be prepared under Section 4, the appropriate Government shall ensure that a public hearing is held at the affected area, after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue for the public hearing, to ascertain the views of the affected families to be recorded and included in the Social Impact Assessment Report, WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 46 : 2025:KER:86 which is to be published as per Section 6 of the RFCTLARR Act at the designated places. The Social Impact Assessment Report is liable to be appraised by an independent multi disciplinary Expert Group as provided under Section 7. Section 7(4) provides that if the Expert Group is of the opinion that, the project does not serve any public purpose; or the social costs and adverse social impacts of the project outweigh the potential benefits, it shall make a recommendation within two months from the date of its constitution to the effect that the project shall be abandoned forthwith and no further steps to acquire the land will be initiated in respect of the same and that the grounds for such recommendation shall be recorded in writing giving the details and reasons for such decision. It is provided further that where the appropriate WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 47 : 2025:KER:86 Government, in spite of such recommendations, proceeds with the acquisition, then, it shall ensure that its reasons for doing so are recorded in writing. Section 7(5) provides that, if the Expert Group is of the opinion that the project will serve any public purpose; and the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts, it shall make specific recommendations within two months from the date of its constitution whether the extent of land proposed to be acquired is the absolute bare-minimum extent needed for the project and whether there are no other less displacing options available and the grounds for such recommendation shall be recorded in writing. Section 7(6) deals with publication of recommendations of the Expert Group. Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act deals with the examination of proposals WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 48 : 2025:KER:86 for land acquisition and Social Impact Assessment report by the appropriate Government. Section 8(1)(a) provides that, the appropriate Government shall ensure that, there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition which necessitates the acquisition of the land identified. Clause (b) of Section 8(1) states that the potential benefits and the public purpose referred to in clause
(a) shall outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact as determined by the Social Impact Assessment that has been carried out. It is also provided therein to ensure only the minimum area of land required for the project is proposed to be acquired. Section 9 enables the appropriate Government to get itself exempted from social impact assessment where land is proposed to be acquired invoking the urgency provisions of WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 49 : 2025:KER:86 Section 40. Section 11 provides that whenever the land in an area is required or likely to be required for any public purpose, a preliminary notification to that effect along with the details of the land to be acquired in rural and urban areas shall be published in the (a) in the Official Gazette; (b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality of such area of which one shall be in the regional language;(c) in the local language in the Panchayat, Municipality or Municipal Corporation as the case may be and in the offices of the District Collector, the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil; (d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate Government; (e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 15 deals with hearing of objections and provides that any person interested in any land which has been notified WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 50 : 2025:KER:86 under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being required or likely to be required for a public purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification, object to, (a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b) justification offered for public purpose; (c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment report. Section 15 (2) provides that the Collector after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, make a report to the appropriate Government, containing his recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings for the decision of the Government. Section 15(3) provides that the decision of the appropriate Government on the objections shall be final. Section 19 of the RFCTLARR Act deals with the publication of declaration and WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 51 : 2025:KER:86 summary of Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
27. It is contended by the petitioners that Ext. P2 Social Impact Assessment Report is severely flawed due to lack of proper consultation with the affected people, insufficient notice and limited participation. It is further contended that the survey was conducted haphazardly, interviewing only a few selected individuals and the report failed to address crucial aspects outlined in the RFCTLARR Act and that no study on the social impact caused by the acquisition was conducted, nor the necessity of the acquisition itself was examined.
28. The District Collector, by Ext. P1 notification issued under Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act, authorized one Anitha C. Chacko to conduct Social Impact Assessment Study and to prepare a Social WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 52 : 2025:KER:86 Impact Management Plan as provided under the RFCTLARR Act. Ext. R5(j) is the gazette publication of Ext. P1. The counter affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 5 would show that the Social Impact Study unit had conducted public hearing at Manjoor Grama Panchayat conference hall after giving adequate publicity about the date, time and venue of the public hearing to ascertain the views of the affected families. The notice in Form-5 issued in terms of Rule 14(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Kerala Rules, 2015 has been produced by the 5 th respondent as Ext. R5(k). It is stated that, in the public hearing, the Member of Parliament, the Member of Legislative Assembly, the Presidents of the Grama Panchayats, the District Panchayat Member and other WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 53 : 2025:KER:86 elected representatives, Government officials, the public, property owners and heirs representing the land owners participated. The attendance sheet of public hearing is produced as Ext. R5(m). Both the petitioners and the wife of the 1st petitioner participated in the hearing conducted on 16.08.2019 as is evident from Ext.R5(m). It is stated that, in the public hearing, the petitioners did not raise any objections to the proposed ROB in light of the existing ROB. The only demand of the 2nd petitioner as could be seen from Ext. P2 was that his building may be excluded from the acquisition. Having participated in the hearing, the petitioners cannot contend that there was no proper notice or consultation. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 5 of the RFCTLARR Act. The Social Impact Study report was published in terms of WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 54 : 2025:KER:86 Section 6 of the RFCTLARR Act.
29. Yet another contention of the petitioners is that the Social Impact Study Report did not contain assessment as to whether the proposed acquisition serves public purpose and that the Report did not consider whether acquisition was necessary at all. Going by the Social Impact Study report, it can be seen that Ext. P2/Ext. R5(n) Report concludes stating that by the completion of the proposed ROB, the decade's long needs of people will be resolved and the project avoids traffic problems of the region. It states that, time and money losses as well as traffic jams can be avoided by the construction of the ROB, and that it is highly necessary to complete the ROB at the earliest. Thus the Social Impact Study report carries an assessment that the proposed acquisition serves WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 55 : 2025:KER:86 public purpose and acquisition is necessary. The Social Impact Study Agency has addressed all matters specified in Section 4(4) of the RFCTLARR Act.
30. Another contention of the petitioners is that the Expert Committee also did not address the question as to whether the project serves any public purpose. The Expert Committee constituted under Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act has submitted Ext. P4/R5(o) report to the District Collector. The report states that the project will be beneficial to the public, with its potential benefits outweighing the social costs and adverse impacts. The Expert Committee strongly recommended the acquisition of land for the ROB, noting that the identified location is most suitable and the social impacts are relatively minimal. It was observed that the Social Impact Assessment Agency WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 56 : 2025:KER:86 conducted an extensive survey and interacted with the affected persons, identifying their major concerns. The affected persons agreed to the acquisition, provided they receive adequate compensation. The Expert Committee recommended expeditious disbursement of compensation to land owners and the rehabilitation of the two individuals who may lose their houses partially. Based on these evaluations, the Expert Committee submitted its recommendation to the District Collector, affirming that the project serves a public purpose and the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse impacts. The Expert Committee's report is in compliance with the requirements of Section 7(5) of the RFCTLARR Act. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the Expert Committee did not address the question whether the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 57 : 2025:KER:86 project serves any public purpose.
31. Regarding the constitution of the Expert Committee, Ext. R2(d) would show that the Expert Committee was constituted with seven members and that the provisions of Section 7 of the RFCTLARR Act were not flouted.
32. The petitioners have contended that the appropriate Government failed to ensure that there is legitimate and bona fide public purpose and the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts and there is nothing in Ext. P5 to show that such exercise was carried out by the District Collector. The 2nd respondent has produced the proceedings under Section 8 of the RFCTLARR Act, recommending acquisition, as Ext. R2(i). As noted, Section 8(1)(a) of the RFCTLARR Act provides that, the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 58 : 2025:KER:86 appropriate Government shall ensure that there is a legitimate and bona fide public purpose for the proposed acquisition which necessitates the acquisition of the land identified. Clause (b) of Section 8(1) provides that the potential benefits and the public purpose referred to in clause (a) shall outweigh the social costs and adverse social impact as determined by the Social Impact Assessment that has been carried out. Section 8(2) provides that the appropriate Government shall examine the report of the Collector, if any, and the report of the Expert Group on the Social Impact Assessment study. After considering all the reports, it shall recommend the area for acquisition that would ensure minimum displacement of people, minimum disturbance to infrastructure and ecology, and minimum adverse impact on affected individuals. WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 59 :
2025:KER:86 In Ext.R2(i), the District Collector while accepting the report of the Expert Committee, refers to the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, requisitioning authority, the report of the Social Impact Assessment Unit, the report of the Expert Committee. As noted, the Expert Committee has opined that the project will serve public purpose and the potential benefits outweigh the social costs and adverse social impacts. Thus, Ext. R2(i) ensures the aspects referred to in Section 8(1). The ultimate goal is to ensure that the overall result is positive for the society. Thus, the aforesaid contention of the petitioners is also not sustainable.
33. Another contention of the petitioners is that Section 11 preliminary notification was issued prior to the publication of the Expert committee's report on the website. The petitioners have produced Ext. P5 as the WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 60 : 2025:KER:86 preliminary notification published by the District Collector in terms of Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act. However, it is contended by respondents 2 and 5 that Ext. P5 is only a form of preliminary notification to be issued by the District Collector under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act. The Preliminary notification that has been gazetted is produced as Ext. R5(q) by the 5 th respondent and the same is dated 16.07.2020. Ext. R5(q) is not under challenge in the writ petition. Ext. P4 report of the Expert Committee was published as provided under Section 7(6) of the RFCTLARR Act as seen from Exts. R2(e) to R2(h). However, the report was uploaded in the website of the District Collector only on 27.05.2020. The Preliminary notification was gazetted on 16.07.2020, as seen from Ext. R5(q). Though there was a delay in uploading Ext. P4 report WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 61 : 2025:KER:86 on the District Collector's website, as long as the Expert Committee report was published by other means as provided under Section 7(6), the delay in uploading the report in the website cannot invalidate or vitiate the proceedings under Section 11(1) of the RFCTLARR Act. In any case, the report was uploaded before the preliminary notification was gazetted. Further, the petitioners have no case that they were prejudiced by the delay in uploading Ext. P4 report in the website.
34. Though the lands belonging to about 60 persons are being acquired for construction of ROB, only two persons have filed this writ petition objecting to the acquisition. The construction of the ROB is as per the national policy and safety policy of the Railways. The grievance of the petitioners is that WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 62 : 2025:KER:86 certain portion of their land and residence will be acquired for the purpose of construction of the ROB. The personal inconvenience of the petitioners cannot outweigh the larger public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India and Another [(2018) 17 SCC 324] held as follows:
"58. In the aforesaid context, it would be pertinent to point out that there may be situations where conflict may arise between two fundamental rights. Situation can be conflict on inter-fundamental rights, intra-fundamental rights and, in certain peculiar circumstances, in respect of some person one fundamental right enjoyed by him may come in conflict with the other fundamental right guaranteed to WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 63 : 2025:KER:86 him. In all such situations, the Court has to examine as to where lies the larger public interest while balancing the two conflicting rights. It is the paramount collective interest which would ultimately prevail."
The construction of ROB on the State Highway, no doubt, is for public purpose. The local residents, the Local Self Government Institutions and Social Organizations have long been demanding for an ROB to replace level crossing at Kuruppanthara through demonstrations, representations and resolutions submitted to various authorities. It is part of the national and safety policies of the Government of India to replace level crossings with ROB or rail under bridges and level cross No.22 is identified by the railways and sanctioned for conversion into an ROB. WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 64 :
2025:KER:86 The projects of such nature having larger public interest shall not be halted at the instance of two individuals who would contend that the acquisition would cause inconvenience to them. The construction of the ROB and the acquisition proceedings cannot be interfered with, on hyper technical grounds or on hypothetical grievance of the petitioners. While balancing the public interest against the private interest, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in favour of the petitioners.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sd/-
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE SPR WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 65 : 2025:KER:86 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18680/2021 PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.DCKTM/7162/2018- GI DATED 20.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT SUBMITTED BY SMT.C.CHACKO ON 19.09.2019. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED THE PETITIONERS AND OTHER AFECTED PARTIES BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF EXPERT COMMITTEE'S REPORT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.7162/2018-GI DATED 24.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.II OF THE ACT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS. EXHIBIT P8 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWIGN THE EXISTING BRIDGE AND THE ROAD ON WHICH THE ADDITIONAL OVER BRIDGE IS SOUGH TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY JAMES JOSEPH, SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (RETD). EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27/05/2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF TEH COLLECTOR TO ADV. DON PAUL.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA-GENERAL), PALA TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.05.2020. EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE REQUISITIONING AUTHORITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2020.WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 66 :
2025:KER:86 EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE EXPERT COMMITTEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.06.2020.
EXHIBIT R2(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT CONSTITUTING THE EXPERT COMMITTEE DATED 29-10-2019.
EXHIBIT R2(e) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR DATED 19-02-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(f) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 17-02-2020. EXHIBIT R2(g) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT R2(h) TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALA DATED 29-02-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(i) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 16-01-2020.
EXHIBIT R2(j) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE DISPUTED AREA.
EXHIBIT R6(A) A TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2(2) DATED 06/10/201.
EXHIBIT R5(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 29/12/2016 PASSED BY KURAVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 30/12/2016 PASSED BY KALLARA ( VAIKAM) GRAMAPANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT R5(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 31/12/2016 OF THE MEETING OF UZHAVOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT R5(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/01/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY, MANJOOR GRAMAPANCHAYATH TO THE CHAIRMAN, DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, KURUPPAMTHARA. EXHIBIT R5(E) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE PENSIONERS UNION, MANJOOR UNIT ON 07/01/2017.
EXHIBIT R5(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, N.S.S. KARAYOGAM, MANJOOR P.O. TO THE GOVERNMENT ON 09/01/2017. EXHIBIT R5(G) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, S.N.D.P.YOGAM, KURUPPANTHARA TO THE GOVERNMENT ON 25/01/2017.WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 67 :
2025:KER:86 EXHIBIT R5(H) A TRUE COPY OF G.0.(RT) NO. 942/2017/PWD DATED 10/07/2017 WITH ANNEXURE. EXHIBIT R5(I) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PWD-016-03-PA-01 DATED 07.06.2018.
EXHIBIT R5(J) A TRUE COPY OF THE 4(1) NOTIFICATION DATED 16.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 NOTICE DATED 26.07.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 NOTICE DATED 09.08.2019.
EXHIBIT R5(M) A TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON 16/08/2019.
EXHIBIT R5(N) A TRUE COPY OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT STUDY. EXHIBIT R5(O) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT. EXHIBIT R5(P) A TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS NO.
DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 DATED 16.01.2020. EXHIBIT R5(Q) A TRUE COPY OF SECTION 11(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY NO. 1700 DATED 16.07.2020.
EXHIBIT R5(R) A TRUE COPY OF SECTION 11(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN KERALA GAZETTE EXTRA ORDINARY NO.1436 DATED 15.04.2021.
EXHIBIT R5(S) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
LR/7512/2021/ LR(C3) DATED 28/05/2022. EXHIBIT R5(T) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.04.2022. EXHIBIT R5(U) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2022. EXHIBIT R5(V) TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA EXTRA ORDINARY GAZETTE NO. 2343 DATED 14.07.2022.
EXHIBIT R5(W) A TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED GENERAL AGREEMENT DRAWING DATED 07/03/2023.
EXHIBIT R4(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE CUM PROGRAM SHEET OF THE MANJOOR VIKASANA SAMITHIRELATING TO THE VARIOUS PROGRAM ORGANIZED AND HELD ON 2/12/2016, 3/12/2016 AND 7/12/2016.
EXHIBIT R4(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 3/1/2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE CHAIRMAN, MANJOOR VIKASANA SAMITHI, ENCLOSING THE DECISION NO.11 DATED 20/7/2016 OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.
WP(C) NO. 18680 OF 2021 : 68 :
2025:KER:86 EXHIBIT R4(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.II (1) DATED 27/12/2007 MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT R4(D) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.4 DATED 29/12/2016 TAKEN BY THE KURAVILANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R4(E) A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. VII-(8) DATED 31/12/2016 TAKEN AT THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE OF THE UZHAVOOR BLOCK PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT R4(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. DCKTM/ 7162/2018/G1 DATED 16/1/2020 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM/ APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY.
EXHIBIT R4(G) THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXPERT GROUP'S / EXPERT COMMITTEE'S REPORT WITH THE CERTIFICATION OF THE SECRETARY, MANJOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM, ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), PALA, DATED 19- 07-2023.
EXHIBIT R4(H) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION CONTAINING THE DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM BEARING PROCEEDINGS NO. DCKTM/7162/2018/G1 DATED 16-01-2020 TOGETHER WITH THE REPORT OF THE EXPERT GROUP/EXPERT COMMITTEE PUBLISHED IN THE 'MANGALAM' DAILY, DATED 05-02-2020, ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL), PALA, DATED 19-07-2023.