Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021
PETITIONERS: 1 BASHEER AGED 58 YEARS S/O. CHEKKU MOHAMMAD, MOZHIKKALTHEKKENODI HOUSE, 2 MOHAMMAD ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O.C.K.SULAIMAN, AGED 38 YEARS, CHOLAKKARA HOUSE, 3 KUTTY HASAN S/O.UNNIMOYI, AGED 72 YEARS, CHULAICHALIL HOUSE, 4 SUDHAKARAN S/O.UNNIYERI, AGED 62 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE, 5 ABDUL KAREEM S/O. ALI HASAN, AGED 57 YEARS, KALATHUNNODI HOUSE, 6 JAYARAJAN S/O.UNNIYERI, AGED 49 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE, 7 SIVADASAN S/O.UNNIYERI, AGED 54 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE,
8 JANEESH S/O.BALAN, AGED 38 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERUVAYOOR P.O., ELAMARAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673645. WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021 2 9 BALASUBRAMANIAM S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS,CHUZHICHALIL HOUSE, 10 ABDUL SALAM S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 55 YEARS, CHUNDAKADAN HOUSE, 11 USMAN AGED 46 YEARS, POONTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, KARIYATHRAKUZHI, CHERUVAYOOR P.O., ELAMARAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673645. 12 SASHIKUMAR S/O.UNNIKUMARAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE, 13 SADANANDAN S/O.KESHU, AGED 58 YEARS, CHUZHICHALIL HOUSE, 14 NANDAKUMAR S/O.UNNIKUMARAN, AGED 48 YEARS, PARAMBIL HOUSE, BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676505. 3 DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021 3 CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676505. 4 THE TAHSILDAR (LA) KONDOTTI, KONDOTTI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673638. 5 VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKKADU VILLAGE, VAZHAKKADU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673640. 6 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676505.
7 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM - 676505. OTHER PRESENT: SMT. RESMITHA RAMACHANDRAN- GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021 4
JUDGMENT
The petitioners, in essence, contend that the alignment now proposed by the respondents, for expansion of a particular road entering into the State Highway be altered, so that their properties can be saved.
2. The petitioners submit that various
allegations have been unfairly made against them by the respondents, including that they are in illegal possession of their properties and assert that all these are incorrect. They add that they have placed the true facts before the 7th respondent - Executive Engineer, PWD, Malappuram through Ext.P5 representation; and pray that said Authority be directed to take it up and hear them, so as to decide whether their grievances can be allayed, as also whether the alignment can be altered in any manner whatsoever.
3. The learned Government Pleader, Smt.Resmitha
Ramachandran, submitted that, as far as the alignment is concerned, it is something which is to WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021 5 be decided by the competent Authorities having technical expertise and that petitioners cannot dictate the manner in which it has to be finalized. She, however, submitted that if this Court is only inclined to allow the 7th respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation, after hearing the petitioners, she will not stand in such way; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in their favour in this judgment.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, as
rightly stated by Smt.Resmitha Ramachandran, the alternative proposal stated to have been made by the petitioners through Ext.P7 is not something which this Court can speak conclusively on, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, on account of the well recognized inhibition of jurisdiction in such matters. The best this Court can do is to allow the 7 th respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation and also decide whether the alternative proposal of the petitioners is credible and worth considering. WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021 6 Resultantly, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the 7th respondent to hear the petitioners and issue appropriate orders on Exts.P5 and P7 representations, in terms of law, after following due procedure. I further clarify that, depending upon the decision to be taken by the 7 th respondent, petitioners will be at liberty to approach the 4th respondent - Tahsildar for any relief on Exts.P3 and P3(a), which shall then be considered by the said Authority in terms of law. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/1.10 WP(C) NO. 14635 OF 2021 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14635/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE AREA WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS TO TAKE PLACE. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE HE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE LOCAL RESIDENTS DATED 25.11.2019 IS ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT SHOWING THE SUBMISSION OF THE REPRESENTATION. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10 DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10 DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF SOME OF THE RECEIPTS NOS. EC-495/2021, EC-504/2021, EC-499/2021 DATED 13.04.2021 EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATIONS BY THE FATHER OF THE 2ND PETITIONER , 4TH PETITIONER AND 10TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION EXPLAINING THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL OF DEVELOPMENT OF ROAD DATED 03.07.2021 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONERS AND THE OTHER LOCAL RESIDENTS.