Facts
The petitioner owned 58.11 cents in Survey No. 29/3A2, Therekalputhoor Village; 22.11 cents were acquired by the National Highways authorities, and compensation was paid.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 2, 5The petitioner nevertheless continued to operate a weighbridge business on the acquired land.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 2, 5After earlier proceedings concerning compensation, he sought six months to vacate in a representation dated 21 March 2022.
Source reference: p.3, para. 4That petition was disposed of on 25 July 2025, with the Court noting that three years had elapsed since the representation and that no further orders were necessary.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 4, 6In September 2026, the petitioner sought a five-year licence or lease under Section 25 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, and challenged the second respondent’s rejection of his representation, which directed him to vacate.
Source reference: pp. 2–3; p. 5, paras. 7–8Issues
1. Whether the second respondent’s rejection of the petitioner’s representation warranted judicial interference
Source reference: pp. 2–32. Whether the petitioner was entitled to further time or a five-year licence or lease over the acquired land to relocate his weighbridge business
Source reference: p. 5, paras. 7–9Law Applied
The petition invoked Section 25 of the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002, as the basis for the requested licence or lease.
Source reference: p. 2However, the Court did not interpret or apply that provision, nor did it cite any other statute or external precedent.
Source reference: no citationIts reasoning rested on the case-specific conclusion that the petitioner had already had sufficient time to vacate, including in light of the Court’s earlier order dated 25 July 2025.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 6–8Reasoning
The Court considered that the petitioner had remained on the acquired land despite acquisition and payment of compensation, and had continued to do so through earlier proceedings and the period following the 2025 order.
Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 2, 4–8It treated the prior order’s observation that three years had elapsed since the request for time as significant, and found that the need to relocate the weighbridge did not justify further indulgence.
Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 6–8The Court therefore found no merit in the challenge to the rejection or in the request for further relief.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner’s request for further time or a licence or lease over the acquired land.
It made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 9Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 20021
Original Court PDF
J.Robert KennedyvsThe Secretary
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
