IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4346 of 2008(P)
1. MURUNGOOR SREE NARASIMHAMOORTHY KSHETRA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR
3. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
4. UNION OF INDIA,
5. THE STATE OF KERALA
For Petitioner :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.THOMAS ANTONY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :20/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.4346 of 2008 (P)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 20th day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner’s grievance is against the notification issued by
the respondents under Section 3A of the National Highways Act,
including the land occupied by Muringoor Sree Narasimhamoorthy
Kshetram. According to the petitioner on publication of the
notification, they filed their objections, and that without considering
the objections and representations, further proceedings are being
continued.
2. In paragraph 3 of the statement filed by the 1st
respondent, it is stated thus :-
“This stretch of land from km 270 to 332 (Mannuthy-Aluva
Section) is situated in Thrissur Ernakulam District in the State of
Kerala. The land mentioned in Writ Petition is included in the
proposal of junction improvement at Karukutty Road Junction. The
exact Sy.No. of this land of the temple is Sy.113/9 of Muringoor
Vadakkummuri village which is a National Highway Puramboke.
National Highway Puramboke does not require 3A notification. So
the aforesaid Sy.No.was not included in 3A notification. The Land
where the temple is situated is the property of the National
Highway as it is a National Highway Puramboke. The petitioner
had no right over this land which is proposed under acquisition.”
WP(C) No.4346/2008
-2-
Therefore, according to the respondents, it is a National Highway
Puramboke, which is required for widening of the National Highway.
3. The petitioner has not produced any document to show
that they have any legal right or possession, either contractual or
otherwise, on the property in question. If that be so, being
trespassers, they cannot raise any justifiable objection resisting the
proceedings initiated by the respondents.
4. Thus on the merits, I do not find any case for
interference. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks a reasonable time of one month to shift the structure now
available.
5. I heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents as well.
Having regard to the submissions made, the time as sought
for, namely one month from today for shifting the structure now
available, is granted.
With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg