If temple, mosque affected for development of National Highway, God will forgive us: Kerala High Court

Citizens should overlook their minor difficulties for the larger objective of development of the country, the Kerala High Court observed on Friday, dismissing a batch of petitions that challenged the acquisition proceedings for National Highway (NH) development (Balakrishna Pillai Vs Union of India).Single-judge Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held that presence of a mosque or temple on the proposed path of the National Highway should not be a ground to drop acquisition proceedings."For the development of the National Highway, if the religious institutions are affected, God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment," the Court said.The Court observed that it is a settled position that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) is a professionally managed statutory body having expertise in the field of development and maintenance of National Highways (NH). The Court dismissed the petition noting that no specific mala fides have been alleged by the petitioners against the NHAI which would warrant interference by the Court. "Whether there is a house, building erected on the proposed alignment in question or that there is a Temple or a Mosque or Grave, which will be affected by the acquisition is not a ground for dropping acquisition proceedings for a public purpose," the judgment stated. .For the development of the National Highway, if the religious institutions are affected, God will forgive us. God will protect the petitioners, the authorities, and also the author of this judgment.Kerala High Court .The petitions were filed by persons and institutions who were aggrieved by the proposed widening of NH-66 at Kollam. The petitioners were represented by advocates R Krishnaraj, PA Mohammed Shah and Sreegesh MK. Advocates Salil Narayanan and Mathews K Philip appeared for the National Highway Authority of India..The primary contention in all petitions was that the NHAI was not following the directions of the State government with regard to acquisition of land. According to the petitioners, the Kerala government had suggested some changes in the alignment with a specific intention to save religious institutions.However, the petitioners alleged that these suggestions were largely ignored by the NHAI. The alignment of the NH itself was changed with the acquisition concentrated on the northern side of the existing NH, where some of the petitioners are residing and some of the religious institutions are situated, they submitted..The Court noted that in the instant case, the petitioners have not contended that there is any violation of the mandate of National Highway Authority Act, 1956. .The Court opined that to achieve development at a rate which is competitive in the global economy, infrastructure available in the country must also be developed, including highways. .However, without difficulty to a section of the citizens, no development activities can be implemented in the country, it added.The Court also observed that laws like the National Highway Act, the old Land Acquisition Act and new 2013 Land Acquisition Act are in existence to protect the rights of citizens. ."The legislations like National Highway Act, the old Land Acquisition Act, and also the new enactment namely, Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 are there and it will to some extent protect the rights of the citizens, whose land is acquired. There are provisions for granting adequate compensation and also rehabilitation schemes in the above legislation," the judgment said..While this may not be an alternative when one is losing his land where he was born and brought up such difficulties should be accepted to achieve the development of our great nation, the Court added..Therefore, the Court felt that the only point to be decided in this case is whether the alignment proposed by the authorities is justifiable and whether there is anything that warrants interference by the Court. .While accepting that the difficulties put forth by the petitioners are genuine, the Court opined that the NHAI seems to have accepted the recommendations of the State Government in spirit and have done their best to avoid religious institutions. In this regard, the Court placed reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v Kushala Shetty in which it was held that the limited question to be considered when an acquisition proceeding is challenged before a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, is whether the acquisition is ex-facia contrary to the mandate of law or tainted due to mala fides.." While invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal to a decision of the National Highway Authorities, a statutory body having expertise in the field. According to me, the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in such a situation is very limited. As observed by the Apex Court, only in rarest of rare cases, the Court can interfere invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to interdict an acquisition proceedings, which is for a public purpose, especially for National Highway," the Court noted..It, therefore, declined to intervene in the acquisition proceedings and dismissed the petitions..[Read Judgement]