LAWS(KER)-2017-6-183

RAJESH M M Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR

Decided On June 05, 2017
Rajesh M M Appellant
V/S
SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the acquisition attempted by the National Highway [NH] authorities of 36 cents of property owned by them. The petitioners have large extent of property to the west of the NH 47 [new NH 544]. The petitioners' property is situated near to the Toll Plaza, which came up at Paliyekkara. The petitioners were before this Court earlier with another writ petition, contending that there was no notification issued. However, the NH authorities produced Exhibit P11 notification in the said case. Exhibit P11 was dated 21.10.2009. The petitioner filed Exhibit P12 objections dated 18.09.2010, against the notification. By Exhibit P13, the Special Deputy Collector (LA) appointed under the National Highways Act, 1956 [for brevity "NH Act"], rejected the same for reason of the same having been filed beyond 21 days as prescribed under Section 3A of the NH Act. An application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for brevity "RTI Act"] was responded to by Exhibit P14, producing the location plan as asked for under the Act. The petitioner challenge the notification before this Court.

(2.) This Court, by interim order dated 10.11.2010, directed stay of Exhibit P11 notification interdicting taking possession of the property sought to be acquired from the petitioners. The property is comprised in Survey No.467/1 Pt. of Nenmanikkara Village, as is seen from Exhibit P11 notification, which has an extent of 1500 square metres. This Court also, by the very same order, directed consideration of the objections of the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1 st respondent, producing Exhibit R1(a), by which the objections were rejected. The order itself is dated 22.10.2010 and it was produced by the counter affidavit dated 29.09.2011. The petitioners have not chosen to challenge the said order. In any event, the writ petition being pending for all these years, it is only proper that the sustainability of the order is also considered.