Judgment :- Ramachandran Nair, J. 1. Appellants, the petitioners in the W.P.(C)s., challenged the proposal of the National Highway Authority to acquire their lands along with the land belonging to others for construction of a Bye pass at Vatanappally in the National Highway No.17 which is the coastal Highway from Kochi to Mangalore. The objection raised against the proposed acquisition by the appellants in W.A. No.392/2010 was considered by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) based on direction issued by this court in an earlier W.P.(C) filed by them. This order produced as Ext.P10 in W.P.(C) No.4838/2010 was challenged by them before this court. So far as the appellants in W.A. No.479/2010 are concerned, their objections against proposed acquisition were not considered and are stated to be still pending with the Special Deputy Collector(L.A.). We have heard counsel appearing for both the appellants, Standing Counsel appearing for the National Highway Authority and have gone through Ext.P10 order issued by the Special Deputy Collector(L.A.). 2. Objections raised by the appellants are several and they have even contended that Bye pass itself is unnecessary. Further contention raised by them is that huge amount is needed for creation of new Bye pass and there is sufficient width for the road in the town area for widening. Besides this, they have raised the allegation that Bar hoteliers and shop owners located on the road side of the town have exerted influence on the Highway Authority and the acquisition authorities against acquisition and demolition of the buildings for widening the road. 3. There can be no dispute that development of the National Highway, whether it be through widening of the existing road or by constructing a Bye pass for the town, Vatanapally, is a public purpose. Appellants also do not canvass the position that development of the National Highway is not a public purpose. Therefore, the only question to be considered is whether the Highway Authority and the acquisition authorities should be directed to proceed with demolition of the buildings on the road side in the Vatanappally town for widening the road or whether they should be permitted to go ahead with the alignment of the road by constructing a Bye pass to avoid the Vatanappally town. Even though learned Single Judge has not considered the case on merits, we notice that all the issues raised by the appellants were meticulously considered and decided by the Special Deputy Collector (LA) in Ext.P10 order. After conducting a local inspection on 9.12.2009 he has found that if existing road is to be widened in the town area, the same will lead to demolition of 790 structures. Compared to this, if Bye pass is constructed avoiding the town, demolition involved is only much less number of structures because the land is generally free. If widening of existing road leads to demolition of large number of buildings, the same will lead to heavy financial burden by way of compensation payable to the building owners. Further, it would take long time for the shop owners, hoteliers and other businessmen to rehabilitate themselves after all their business premises are demolished. The entire business community will be wiped out if buildings on either side of the narrow road are demolished. Considering the heavy financial burden and the consequences arising on account of massive demolition of all the shops and buildings, we are of the view that the Special Deputy Collector rightly overruled the objections of the appellants and accepted the proposal of the National Highway authority to construct a Bye pass for aligning the existing Highway at both the ends of the Vatanappally town. It is also specifically stated in Ext.P10 that the proposed Bye pass does not involve demolition of temple, church, mosque or other sensitive institutions which are exempted from acquisition. Even though counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.392/2010 has highlighted the existence of structure for snake gods, the records make it clear that the land treated as abode of the snake gods was abandoned for long and the matter is taken up by the appellants now only to block the construction of the proposed Bye pass road. We do not find any bonafides in this objection raised by the appellants. 4. Counsel appearing for the appellants have raised a contention that there is general consensus among the authorities and political parties in the State to limit the width of the National Highways in Kerala at 30 metres as against the normal norm of 45 metres elsewhere in the country. 4. Counsel appearing for the appellants have raised a contention that there is general consensus among the authorities and political parties in the State to limit the width of the National Highways in Kerala at 30 metres as against the normal norm of 45 metres elsewhere in the country. We do not think we should consider this question because it is upto the State authorities to suggest on the width of the Highway and it is open to the Highway Authority to deal with the objection raised on width of the road. However, we are constrained to observe that what is important is to have sufficiently wide roads in the State to reduce the number of accidents in the State. It is a notorious fact that NH 17 is probably the narrowest Highway in the country and to call it a National Highway in the present form itself is ridiculous. In every case involving widening of the road, we are of the view that in order to avoid exorbitant cost and objection from the business community, it would be desirable for the authorities to construct Bye pass through vacant land excluding towns and cities. In fact, on either side of every road in the State, there are ever so many structures abutting into the road where business is carried on. Therefore, development of the road which is possible only by widening is out of question, if the road authorities yield to the pressures of the business community against demolitions. In our view, the right course for the State and the National Highway Authority would be to give up the proposal for widening roads through demolitions and take up construction of entirely new Highway which will pass through rural areas so that the entire problem of demolition of buildings is got over and proper Highways could be constructed in accordance with the norms of the National Highway Authority at moderate cost. 5. Even though counsel for the appellants in W.A. No.479/2010 contended that their objections are still pending with the acquisition authority, we do not think there is any scope for considering the objections filed by the appellants in that case separately because all the objections raised by the land owners are discussed and decided in Ext.P10 by which the proposal for acquisition of land for the Bye pass is reaffirmed by the Land Acquisition Authority which is confirmed by us. We, therefore, dismiss both the Writ Appeals as devoid of any merit.