P.Kunhammad vs The Union Of India on 11 March, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8030 of 2010(C)


1. P.KUNHAMMAD, S/O.POCKER, AGED 66 YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SASEENDRAN THARIPAYIL, S/O.KANARAN
3. T.T.DINESAN, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 50 YEARS

                        Vs



1. THE UNION OF INDIA, WITH ADDRESS FOR
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT

3. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/03/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
               --------------------------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) NO.8030 OF 2010 (C)
               --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

Ext.P11 is a notification issued by the respondents under

Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956. Exts.P12 and P13 are

the notifications issued under Section 3A(3) of the said Act.

Petitioners’ properties are also proposed to be acquired and the

petitioners claim title over their property by referring to Exts.P1 to

P10. On the publication of the notification they filed Exts.P14 to P16

objections. The matter is pending consideration of the competent

authority. It is at this stage that this writ petition is filed.

2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the

petitioners is that with the description of the property sought to be

acquired as contained in the notifications referred to above, the land

owners are not in a position to identify the property and for that

reason the notifications are illegal. Learned counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High

Court in Bahori Lal V. Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. (1970

Allahabad 414) and the judgment of the Apex Court in Competent

WPC.No. 8030/2010
:2 :

Authority V. Barangore Jute Factory & Ors. (2005(13)SCC 477).

3. In my view however the writ petition is premature. As

already seen, notifications which are challenged are those issued

under Section 3A of the National Highway Act, 1956. The Act itself

provides that on publication of the notification the affected parties

are entitled to file their objection and Section 3C provides that, on

receipt of such objections, the competent authority has to hear the

objectors, make such further enquiry and by order either allow or

disallow the objections. In this case objections have been filed and

the competent authority is yet to pass orders as required under

Section 3C. Therefore, at this stage it is for the petitioners to

canvass before the competent authority their objections including

those raised by them in this writ petition and thereafter the

competent authority is to pass appropriate orders in the matter.

At this stage challenge is premature and for that reason, the

writ petition is dismissed, leaving open the contentions.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No. 8030/2010
:3 :