Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1611 (KER)

Aby Eapen, Pullolickal v. State of Kerala

2025-06-09

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. The writ petition has been filed seeking to direct respondents 2 and 3 to construct a retention wall to provide lateral support to protect the petitioner's property on the side of a road. 2. The petitioner states that the Government has entrusted road widening work of Muvattupuzha – Punalur Highway to respondents 2 to 4. The 3 rd respondent was developing the road between Plachery and Ponkunnam. The petitioner's house is on the side of the said road. The respondents have acquired a considerable portion of the petitioner's land. The respondents have cut the soil vertically down at a depth of 12 feet and at a length of more than 70 metres. The petitioner's house has lost lateral support due to the work. 3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 request dated 02.03.2020 to the 3 rd respondent seeking to construct a retention wall. The 3 rd respondent, as per Ext.P2 reply dated 10.08.2020, informed that an inspection has been conducted and the application has been forwarded to the supervision consultant, for further action. 4. From information gathered under the RTI Act, the petitioner came to know that steps have been taken to inspect the place and a recommendation has been given though a final decision is not taken. The petitioner again submitted Ext.P5 application dated 21.10.2022 to the District Collector. The petitioner learnt that the 4 th respondent-Chief Engineer (Projects) has directed the consulting Engineers Group and the contractor to complete the PAP work. 5. The petitioner states that the present stage of the property is highly dangerous. The building in the property is likely to tumble down during this monsoon. The irresponsibility and omissions on the part of the respondents cannot be condoned. The petitioner and family is forced to live under threat to life due to the inaction and negligence on the part of the respondents. 6. The 3 rd respondent resisted the writ petition. In the statement dated 26.05.2024, the 3 rd respondent has stated that the house of the petitioner is located 6.3 metres away from the road boundary and there is hard rock / hard laterite existing in this area. Therefore, there is no potential danger to the petitioner's house and property. No protection works are necessary. 7. In the statement dated 26.05.2024, the 3 rd respondent has stated that the house of the petitioner is located 6.3 metres away from the road boundary and there is hard rock / hard laterite existing in this area. Therefore, there is no potential danger to the petitioner's house and property. No protection works are necessary. 7. The 3 rd respondent further submitted that though the construction of protection wall in front of the petitioner's property was included in PAP action plan, the EPC contractor has not taken up the work citing that the rates approved is not conducive for them. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents. 9. The petitioner's house is situated on the side of Muvattupuzha – Punalur Highway. A portion of the petitioner's land has been acquired for development of the Highway. The respondents have cut the soil vertically down at a depth of 12 feet and at a length of more than 70 metres. Ext.P9 photograph would show that the house of the petitioner is likely to be damaged and even collapsed if there occurs even slightest landslide. 10. Ext.P6 communication of the Chief Engineer (Projects) would reveal that PAP works in this area was included in the estimates and directions were given to complete PAP work in this area. The contention of the respondents is that the contractor abstained from taking up the work stating that the estimate is insufficient and he will incur loss if the said PAP work is carried out. 11. When the petitioner has filed this writ petition, the respondents have come up with a new reason that there are no safety issues to the petitioner's house, as hard rock / hard laterite exists there and a retaining wall is not necessary, as it would be a wasteful expenditure. 12. As the petitioner's house is situated about 6.3 metres away from the road boundary, the road itself may not face any potential threat. However, fact remains that due to the road development work, earth has been removed at a depth of 12 feet and the petitioner's house now situates in a precarious position as can be seen from Ext.P9 photograph. The respondents therefore cannot ignore the potential danger stating that there is hard rock / hard laterite existing in this area. However, fact remains that due to the road development work, earth has been removed at a depth of 12 feet and the petitioner's house now situates in a precarious position as can be seen from Ext.P9 photograph. The respondents therefore cannot ignore the potential danger stating that there is hard rock / hard laterite existing in this area. As far as the petitioner and his family is concerned, this is a matter of life and death for them. The change in the plans of the respondents with respect to protection work, offends Article 21 of the Constitution of India as far as the petitioner and his family is concerned. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to construct a retention wall or take any other protective measure to provide lateral support to the petitioner's property on the side of the Highway.