Scope of Judicial Review In Technical Matters Related To Infrastructure Projects, Land Acquisition Is Limited: Kerala HC Reiterates
Dismissing an appeal against an order rejecting the challenge to a land acquisition for construction of a Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Edava in Thiruvananthapuram District, the Kerala High Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in such technical matters like infrastructure projects and land acquisition is limited.
In doing so the court underscored that a balance has to be maintained between public interest and private interest in such cases.
Referring to various decisions of the Supreme Court and high court on the subject a division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu said:
“Scope of judicial review in the case of technical matters related to infrastructure projects like alignment is extremely limited. Same is the case with acquisition of land also. We are conscious of the fact that delay in acquisition of land as well as implementation of projects involving huge expenditure would lead to multiplication of the financial burden, apart from delaying the enjoyment of benefits envisioned to be made available to the public with the implementation. It needs no mention that the cost of construction escalates with passage of time. A project contemplated at one point of time, when implemented several years later, would cause huge loss to the public exchequer".
"Overwhelming public interest involved in infrastructure development shall not be lost sight of while exercising the power of judicial review in cases calling in question various steps taken by the authorities concerned for implementation of projects. Balancing public interest vis-a-vis private interests appropriately is essential in such cases," the court added.
As per the facts, 43 residents of Edava approached the high court challenging the land acquisition proceedings in particular, the social impact study report of April 26, 2019. The writ petition was eventually disposed of directing the District Collector to take action. The District Collector found alternative alignments were not viable.
Then the District Collector's order was challenged in another writ petition (2020) and in an interim order the high court had directed the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre (NATPAC) to conduct an expert study to inspect and submit a report regarding the feasibility of the alternative route. Eventually in February this year, this writ petition was disposed of directing the Collector to reconsider the matter as per the request of residents based on the report of NATPAC.
Thereafter, the District Collector conducted fresh proceedings by considering the contentions regarding alternate alignments. However, the Collector decided to proceed with the land acquisition by way of its May 13 order.
This was challenged through yet another writ petition wherein the petitioners also sought for a fresh Social Impact Assessment Study regarding alternative route alignment. On September 24 the petition was dismissed on the grounds that residents do not have the authority to dictate the alignment. The single judge bench also noted that its scope for judicial review in such cases is limited. Against this the petitioners moved the division bench in appeal.
In appeal, the residents contended that present alignment causes hardships and loss to local inhabitants and alternative alignments suggested by them were not effectively considered. It was argued that a meaningful assessment considering their grievances was not conducted on the previous occasions.
The respondents stated that the residents were trying to delay the project by approaching the Court several times. It was submitted that even feasibility of alternative routes were analysed appropriately by the authorities as was sought by the residents. It was also submitted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was limited.
The Court noted that this is third round of litigation preferred by the residents. It noted that five years have lapsed since the date of issuance of notification for land acquisition has been issued.
The high court thereafter said, "The writ court is not expected to repeatedly interfere with the proceedings of the competent authorities, till the petitioners are satisfied. As noted above, indulgence was shown by this Court in favour of the Appellants in two rounds of litigation. Though it was not strictly within the realm of judicial review, the learned Single Judge in the second round of litigation issued a direction to NATPAC to conduct a study and obtained a report. The authorities concerned, however, for reasons narrated in the impugned proceedings concluded that the alignment proposed by the experts alone can be followed and the other alignments suggested by the Appellants are not technically feasible. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it is not for this Court to take a different view in matters like alignment of a railway over bridge".
It accepted the contentions of the counsel for the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation that the Appellants (petitioners before single judge bench), by repeatedly invoking the Writ jurisdiction of the Court, are "desperately trying to frustrate the acquisition of their properties for the construction of the railway over bridge".
Observing that the single judge bench had arrived at the right conclusion, the high court dismissed the appeals.
Case Number: W.A.Nos.1558, 1582 & 1583 Of 2024
Case Title: Wahabuddin V State Of Kerala & Other Cases
Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 679