K-Rail SilverLine| Laying Of Survey Stones For SIA, Not Acquisition;Won't Affect Land Owner's Rights : Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday remarked that it has inputs that assure that none of the properties marked by the survey stones in furtherance of the State's K-Rail Silver Line project will be subject to any restrictions whatsoever. 

When the counsel for the petitioner raised apprehension that the laying of survey stones will affect the landowners' rights, Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked that the State had clarified its stand in this regard.

"I have inputs to show that not a single inch of the land is frozen. There is no restriction on the said property since it is merely a Social Impact Assessment which has been virtually accepted by the Supreme Court as well."

During the last hearing of the case, the Court had expressed its concerns if the property so marked be used by landowners for sale or mortgage and if such property can be produced to avail bank loans.

The Judge then emphasised that it was clearly established now that the ongoing process was only a survey for the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and not for the acquisition of land. The Court observed that this survey has to go on as per the Supreme Court's decision, while adding that it had no intention of hindering the process if it was merely a survey. 

This is in light of the fact that the Supreme Court had earlier refused to interfere with the land survey and social impact assessment process of the project and had remarked that the Single Judge could not have stalled a 'prestigious project'.

The Single Bench was hearing a batch of petitions challenging the State authorities laying down survey stones in petitioners' property as part of the survey process for K-Rail.

Justice Ramachandran also remarked that the issue had become much clearer now that the State had made its stand absolute that the ongoing process was merely a part of a survey and nothing further. 

"When the matter was taken up initially, we had an apprehension that it was for acquisition. I was given an impression that there was more than meets the eye and we proceeded under that assumption to ensure that no illegality was propounded. But now we have an unequivocal admission from them (the State) that it is nothing but a survey for SIA. Now there's clarity. So every contention of the petitioners will be open only when the final notification of the project is issued." 

Since it was a survey, it was found that the only two questions that remain to be answered are the kind of survey stones K-rail has erected on the petitioners' lands and the requirement of a prior individual notice to be served to the concerned landowners. However, the Court noted that even these questions may not be of much significance given that being a survey, it wouldn't affect the landowners in any manner.  Previously, the Court had asked why concrete poles with the marking "K-Rail" were used instead of ordinary survey stones.

Advocate A.K. Preetha appearing for some of the petitioners argued that even to conduct an SIA, the State government was not the competent authority for the reason that the project passes through Mahe, Goa apart from Kerala. 

The Court responded that this question was to be answered by the Central Government which has been maintaining silence on the matter since the inception of the court proceedings. 

At this juncture, Railway Standing Counsel A. Dinesh Rao submitted that 'as of now' the railway line was not passing through Mahe.

Justice Ramachandran observed that the alignment of the project was yet to be finalised and was subject to change. Therefore, the situation was much different from how the case had started since it was clearly elucidated that the State intended to do nothing more than a survey.  So it was found that the concerns posed by the petitioners will now depend on the final concurrence of the project. 

The matter will be taken up by the Single Judge again tomorrow. 

The Judge had earlier directed the State to temporarily defer steps for the survey of the writ petitioners' properties until the matters were called up for the next hearing. However, this order was set aside by a Division Bench noting that Social Impact Assessment cannot be seen as an empty formality and that the public is entitled to know the adverse impact and consequences they are likely to suffer.