Kerala High Court
A.H. Nizamuddin vs State Of Kerala on 13 October, 2025
W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025
. .1..
2025:KER:76876
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 21ST ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 35309 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 A.H. NIZAMUDDIN
AGED 75 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, PUTHOORAM, EDAVA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695311
2 WAHABUDDIN
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O.VAAHAMEED, KIZHAKKE POLIMOOTTIL',
RESIDING AT CHANDRAGAD P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 561,
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR.SHIBU CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O CHANDRAN NAIR,
RESIDING AT CHANDRAGIRI, VENKAVILLA,
IRINCHAYAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD,
TRIVANDRAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 561.
3 DILEEP KUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, RESIDING AT DARUL HUSSAIN,
EDAVA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 311,
REPRESENTED BY SHABEELA DILEEP,
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF DILEEP KUMAR,
RESIDING AT DARUL HUSSAIN, EDAVA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695 311
4 GEETHA.S.R, AGED 60 YEARS
D/O. G. RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT ROSE GARDEN,
VENKULAM, EDAVA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695311
W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025
. .2..
2025:KER:76876
5 VENETIA RAJAN
AGED 64 YEARS
D/O. SAROJINI, RESIDING AT PRAKASH MANDIRAM,
VENKULAM, EDAVA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
NOW AT BLOCK NO.109#04-166, BISHAN STREET-12,
SINGAPORE REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER GEETHA.S.R., D/O. G. RAGHAVAN,
RESIDING AT ROSE GARDEN,VENKULAM, EDAVA.P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695311
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB
SMT.ABIRAMI P.S.
SHRI.TAJ K. TOM
SMT.JIJI JOY
SHRI.SANJAY JOHNSON MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA
LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.V. ROAD,
PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI, PIN - 682025.
4 THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR L.A
GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025
. .3..
2025:KER:76876
BY ADVS.
SRI.RESMITHA.R.CHANDRAN, SC
SRI.MOHAMMED RAFIQ
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025
. .4..
2025:KER:76876
JUDGMENT
The petitioners' properties have been acquired by the respondents for construction of a Railway Over Bridge (R.O.B). According to the petitioners, the same has been done without affording sufficient time for the petitioners to shift the belongings from the properties. The respondents are taking hasty steps to demolish the petitioners' properties, including the residential houses and commercial buildings, that too, without paying compensation to the petitioners, is the grievance espoused.
2. The following are the reliefs 1 and 2 sought for, in this Writ Petition:
"i. To issue a Writ of mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 4 to grant adequate time to the Petitioners for shifting their belongings from the acquired property to any other convenient place.
ii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the
W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025
. .5..
2025:KER:76876
Respondents 1 to 4 to deposit the compensation amount due to the petitioners without any further delay before the concerned statutory authority in accordance with law and further direct the Respondents to grant the interest as contemplated under 80 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Petitioners in accordance with law."
3. Insofar as the 3rd relief is concerned, this Court notice that the same is not maintainable, inasmuch as the petitioners have exhausted their remedy even up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where their S.L.P was ultimately dismissed, about which detailed reference will be made here below.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri.Mohammed Rafiq and Smt.Reshmitha R.Chandran, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the 3 rd respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 4.
5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/requisitioning authority would submit that the acquisition proceedings was initiated in the year 2017. The details of events are stated by W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .6..
2025:KER:76876 the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21115/2024 and connected cases, the judgment of which is produced at Ext.P7. Paragraph No.2 is extracted here below:
"2. The petitioners are residents of Edava village. When the acquisition proceedings were initiated, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.23560 of 2019, mainly with a prayer to quash Social Impact Assessment Study Report, relating to the acquisition of land for the construction of the above mentioned Over Bridge. There was also a prayer in the said Writ Petition to direct the respondents therein to conduct a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study, after serving notice to the petitioners and all the affected persons in the locality. There was a further prayer to conduct a fresh study regarding the feasibility of the alternative routes suggested. The Writ Petition was disposed of, as per Ext.P6 judgment, directing the 2 nd respondent to take appropriate decision in the matter in terms of Section 15(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, 'RFCTLARR Act, 2013'), considering the objections given by the petitioners and others. Thereafter the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P7 order rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners and recommending to proceed with land acquisition. Challenging Ext.P7 order, the petitioners and others preferred WP(C) No.28008 of 2020, before this Court. The main contention raised in that Writ Petition was that, while conducting Social Impact Assessment Study, in terms of Section 4 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, the feasibility of the alternative route suggested was not considered. According to the petitioners, the alternative route suggested by them, is more W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .7..
2025:KER:76876 feasible than the new proposal made. The alternative route suggested was over the existing road. It was pointed out that in the Social Impact Assessment Study Report, the feasibility of the alternative route was not considered at all. Taking note of the said contentions, this court, in WP(C) No.28008 of 2020, passed an order on 25.02.2021, directing NATPAC to depute a suitable team of efficient Scientists/Engineers having expertise in the design and construction of roads and bridges to inspect the proposed site for construction of the Railway Over Bridge at level crossing No.555 at Edava along Paravur-Varkala road and submit a report giving their opinion of the feasibility of option Nos.1 and 2 alignments. Accordingly, NATPAC conducted a feasibility study and filed a detailed report. The NATPAC has given a specific opinion regarding the proposed route as well as the alternative route, which has been described as option Nos.1 and 2 alignments. This Court finally disposed of WP(C) No.28008 of 2020 as per Ext.P9 judgment, with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 report of the NATPAC and take a decision, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.R4(a), order, rejecting the alternative proposal made by the petitioners. Consequent to Ext.R4(a), the 2 nd respondent passed Ext.P10 order recommending to proceed with the land acquisition proceedings. It is challenging Ext.P10, these Writ Petitions have been filed."
The Writ Petitions were ultimately dismissed.
6. An appeal, W.A.No.1558/2024 and connected cases, was preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .8..
2025:KER:76876 Ext.P7, which culminated in Ext.P8 judgment by the Division Bench. Paragraph Nos.15 and 16 of the judgment is extracted here below:
"15. We do not find violation of the provisions of any of the relevant laws in these cases justifying interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution. The writ court is not expected to repeatedly interfere with the proceedings of the competent authorities, till the petitioners are satisfied. As noted above, indulgence was shown by this Court in favour of the Appellants in two rounds of litigation. Though it was not strictly within the realm of judicial review, the learned Single Judge in the second round of litigation issued a direction to NATPAC to conduct a study and obtained a report. The authorities concerned, however, for reasons narrated in the impugned proceedings concluded that the alignment proposed by the experts alone can be followed and the other alignments suggested by the Appellants are not technically feasible. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is not for this Court to take a different view in matters like alignment of a railway over bridge.
16. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the Appellants regarding social impact assessment also. We accept the contentions to the contrary advanced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation with reference to relevant documents. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, we are satisfied that the Appellants, by repeatedly invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court, are desperately trying to frustrate the acquisition of W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .9..
2025:KER:76876 their properties for the construction of the railway over bridge."
7. Undeterred, the petitioner carried an S.L.P before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against Ext.P8 judgment. There was an interim order, vide Ext.P9. Thereafter, the S.L.P was dismissed, vide Ext.P10 Order. The petitioners' request for change of alignment was ultimately rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, finding that the said Court cannot undertake the exercise of replacing the view expressed by the expert authority. It is thereafter that the instant Writ Petition is filed.
8. Insofar as the 2nd relief is concerned, it is the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the compensation amount has already been deposited before the Additional District Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. So, that relief stands allowed, even without the interference of this Court. Coming to the 1st relief, the petitioners seek time for shifting their belongings to other convenient place. Insofar as W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .10..
2025:KER:76876 this relief is concerned, this Court finds no bonafides, whatsoever, on the part of the petitioner. It is relevant to note that the acquisition proceedings commenced in the year 2017. Several imponderables stood in the way of the acquisitioning authority and it is the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader that as many as 69 Awards were passed; and in respect of 63 cases, possession has already been taken. In the instant case, as against the petitioners' properties, the possession was taken on 12.09.2025 after dismissal of the S.L.P by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that the petitioners themselves were signatories to that mahazar, as per which, possession was taken. This Court finds that the instant Writ Petition is nothing but a ruse to prolong the proceedings and to prevent the properties being used for the purpose of acquisition, especially when possession has been taken from the petitioners, as indicated above. It is after taking possession, the instant Writ Petition was filed. If at all, the petitioners have not vacated from the premises, it is for them to do the same W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .11..
2025:KER:76876 immediately, without asking for any further time. All the challenges and legal remedies have been exhausted and there exists no legally permissible ground for the petitioners to continue in the premises, once the acquisition is legally completed. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant any further time to the petitioners to enable shifting of the belongings. It is up to the petitioners to do the same immediately.
9. As already indicated, the 3rd relief for consideration of Exts.P17 and P18 representations, cannot be entertained in the present belated moment. That apart, it is the submission made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that Exts.P17 and P18 representations have already been disposed of vide Ext.R3(m).
10. In the circumstances, nothing survives. This Writ Petition will stand dismissed.
W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025
. .12..
2025:KER:76876
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Section 8 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. If the petitioners are otherwise entitled for the same, the instant judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners in seeking relief in terms of Section 8. It is so observed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE ww W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .13..
2025:KER:76876 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 35309/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION NO.
K3-49325/17 DATED 31/08/2018 MADE UNDER RULE 11 (3) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE PUBLICATION OF THE ERRATUM NOTIFICATION NO.K-49325/17 DATED 17/11/2018 MADE UNDER RULE 11 (3) OF RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/02/2021 IN WP (C) NO.28008/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT APPOINTING THE NATPAC.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE NATPAC BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19/01/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP (C) NO.28008/2020.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K3/49325/17 DATED 30/04/2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP (C) NO.21115/2024 DATED 24/09/2024.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH IN WA NO.1583/2024 AND CONNECTED CASE DATED 16/10/2024 W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .14..
2025:KER:76876 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO.25477/2024 DATED 24/10/2024.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP
NO.25477/2024 DATED 02/09/2025.
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09/09/2025
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED DATED
05/01/2025 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 37.
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 37.
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 37.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 37 & 38.
EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 37 & 38.
EXHIBIT P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 4TH PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. W,P(C) No.35309 of 2025 . .15..
2025:KER:76876 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R (3) A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE CAUSE LIST DATED 24-9-2025 COURT NO 3D SHOWING THE SUBJECT WRIT PETITION AT ITEM NO.13. EXHIBIT R (3) B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29-9-2025.
EXHIBIT R (3) C TRUE COPY OF THE RECIPT DATED 2-8-2023. EXHIBIT R (3) D TRUE COPY OF THE RECIPT DATED 8-10-2025. EXHIBIT R (3) E TRUE COPY OF THE RECIPT DATED 29-9-2025. EXHIBIT R (3) F TRUE COPY OF THE RECIPT DATED 29-9-2025. EXHIBIT R (3) G TRUE COPY OF THE RECIPT DATED 29-9-2025. EXHIBIT R (3) H TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SHOWING THE TAKE OVER OF THE LAND 12-9-2025.
EXHIBIT R (3) I TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SHOWING THE TAKE OVER OF THE LAND 12-9-2025.
EXHIBIT R (3) J TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SHOWING THE TAKE OVER OF THE LAND 12-9-2025.
EXHIBIT R (3) K TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SHOWING THE TAKE OVER OF THE LAND 12-9-2025.
EXHIBIT R (3) L TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SHOWING THE TAKE OVER OF THE LAND 12-9-2025.
EXHIBIT R (3) M TRUE COPY OF A LETTER DATED 9-10-2025.