Scope of judicial review of technical issues related to infrastructure projects, land acquisition limited: Kerala HC reiterates

Citing various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court on this issue, the Division Bench Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu said:

“The scope of litigation in the case of technical issues related to infrastructure projects such as the highway is extremely limited. The situation is the same with the acquisition of land. We are cognizant of the fact that delay in land acquisition as well as implementation of projects involving huge expenditure will lead to increased financial burden apart from delay in availing the benefits envisaged for the public at the time of implementation. It should not be mentioned that the cost of construction increases over time. A project conceived at a certain point in time, when it will be implemented after a few years, will cause huge losses to the state exchequer.”

“The overriding public interest in infrastructure development cannot be lost sight of in the exercise of judicial review powers in cases questioning the various steps taken by the concerned authorities to implement the projects. In such cases, a proper balance of public interest and private interest is important.” – added the court.

According to the facts, 43 Edava residents approached the high court challenging the land acquisition proceedings, including the social impact assessment report dated April 26, 2019. The writ petition was eventually dismissed, directing the District Collector to take action. The district collector found that the alternative routes were not viable.

The district collector’s order was then challenged in another writ petition (2020) and in an interim order, the high court directed the National Transport Planning and Research Center (NATPAC) to conduct an expert study to verify and report on the feasibility of the project. alternative route Ultimately, this court petition was dismissed in February this year, directing the Collector to re-examine the matter as requested by the residents based on the NATPAC report.

Thereafter, the District Collector held a fresh proceeding, hearing the dispute over alternative routes. However, the debt collector decided to continue the purchase of land with his order of May 13.

This was challenged through another writ petition in which the petitioners also sought a fresh social impact assessment study on the alternative route. On September 24, the petition was rejected on the grounds that residents do not have the authority to dictate the route. The panel of single judges also noted that its possibilities for judicial review in such cases are limited. Against this, the petitioners moved the trial chamber in appeal.

In the appeal, the residents argued that the current route was causing hardship and loss to local residents and that their proposed alternative routes had not been effectively considered. It was argued that meaningful assessment of their complaints had not been carried out in previous cases.

The defendants noted that the residents tried to delay the implementation of the project by repeatedly turning to the court. It was claimed that the authorities had properly analyzed even the possibility of alternative routes as desired by the residents. It was also submitted that the trial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was limited.

The court noted that this is the third round of trial preferred by the residents. It is noted that five years have passed since the date of issuance of the notice on the allocation of the land plot.

The High Court then said: “It is expected that the court order will not intervene again in the proceedings of the competent authorities until the applicants are satisfied. As noted above, this Court found leniency in favor of appellants in two rounds of trial. Although it was not exclusively within the scope of judicial review, the learned Single Judge in the second round of litigation directed NATPAC to conduct a study and received a report. However, the relevant authorities, for the reasons set out in the impugned proceedings, concluded that only the alignment proposed by the experts could be followed and the other alignments proposed by the appellants were technically impossible. In the light of the principles laid down by the High Court, this Court cannot take a different view in such matters as the route of the railway over the bridge.’

He agreed with the contention of counsel for the Road and Bridge Development Corporation that the appellants (petitioners in a single judge’s composition), repeatedly invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, were “desperately trying to frustrate the acquisition of their property for the construction of the railway over the bridge”.

Noting that the panel of single judges reached the correct conclusion, the high court dismissed the appeals.