JUDGMENT
The petitioners approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 notification issued under Section 3A(1) of the National Highway Act, 1956. The petitioners' case is that earlier there was an alignment and taking note of the alignment as above, the petitioners constructed new houses. Thereafter, alignment has been changed. By change of alignment, the petitioners would be badly affected. The petitioners submit that they had constructed new houses by expending more than Rs.15 crores.
2. The challenge in regard to the alignment cannot be considered by this Court. Apex Court judgment in Union of India v. Kushala Shetty [(2011) 12 SCC 69], Competent Authority v. Barangore Jute Factory [(2006) KHC 156] held that the National Highway Authority is an expert body in the field of development of Highway and therefore, no authority can interfere with the
4
alignment fixed by such authority. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interfering with this matter. However, taking note of the representations of the petitioners, the National Highway Authority is directed to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners as per Ext.P12. Therefore, the 2ndrespondent shall take a decision on Ext.P12 within a period of two months.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
SAS/19/06/2019 //TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
JUDGE
5
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 5.2.2010.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED
24.1.2012.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED
24.5.2013.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 6TH
RESPONDENT DATED 17.6.2013 TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN
THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 14.3.2018
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OLD ALINGNMENT MARKED IN A
SATELLITE PICTURE.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHANGED NEW ALINGNMENT
MARKED IN A SATELLITE PICTURE.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.4.2018 FROM
THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED
3.4.2018.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 3.4.2018 FROM
THE 6TH RESPONDENT AND ITS REPLY.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 15.3.2018
OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT,GRAMA PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
31.3.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF A PLAN FROM THE NHAI OF THIS
STRETCH
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1-A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TABLE 10-3 OF THE REPORT
SHOWING THE COMPARISON OF ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVES FOR KOTTAKKAL BYPASS