Kerala Silver Line project | Supreme Court refuses to stay land survey

It’s only a preparatory exercise for holding social impact assessment study, says apex court

The Supreme Court on Monday said there is no prejudice caused to members of the public if the Kerala government goes ahead with the land survey and laying down of boundary stones for its proposed ₹64,000–crore Silver Line semi–high speed rail corridor project of Kerala Rail Development Corporation (K-Rail).

A Bench led by Justice M.R. Shah did not interfere with a decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which, while setting aside the January 20 and February 7 interim orders of a single–judge Bench, held that the State government was vested with adequate powers to conduct the survey and mark the properties with boundary stones emblazoned with the “K-Rail” logo for conducting the social impact assessment study under the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961.

The apex court noted that the Single Judge Bench ought not have stalled a prestigious project by passing ad–interim orders. The top court noted that the survey was being conducted only as a preparatory exercise for holding a social impact assessment study which would not have any prejudice to the petitioners.

The court’s order came in an appeal filed by residents and property owners in the Thrissur, Kozhikode and Kottayam districts against the Division Bench order of February 14.

They argued that conducting a boundary survey and fixing stone markers on private properties, that too under a State law like the 1961 Act, were alien to the concept of undertaking a social impact assessment study under the Central statute, The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act).

The survey is being conducted on the strength of a set of ‘unrelated’ and ‘haphazard’ executive notifications issued by the State government to side–step legislative safeguards and expedite project clearances, they submitted.

The petitioners, represented by advocate Lzafeer Ahmed, said the actions of the State amounted to “trespassing into their properties”.