Kerala High Court Slams State Over Conflicting Affidavits, Directs Chief Secretary to Clarify Forest Status of NH-85 Stretch Before Road Widening
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., on Friday (October 24), criticized the State Government for filing contradictory affidavits concerning the legal status of land along the Neriamangalam–Valara stretch of National Highway-85. While hearing a review petition by the National Highways Authority of India seeking modification of an earlier interim order that had treated the land as part of a reserved forest, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to issue a detailed and reasoned order determining whether the disputed area is forest or revenue land. The Bench further instructed coordinated verification through relevant departments before allowing any road widening work.
The review petition was filed by the National Highways Authority of India seeking modification of an interim order dated July 11, 2025, in connection with the widening of National Highway-85 along the Neriamangalam–Valara stretch in Idukki District. The petitioner sought to continue construction without requiring further permissions from the State Government and the Ministry of Environment.
The original writ petitioner, M.N. Jayachandran, had challenged a 1996 government order transferring the Pallivasal–Neriamangalam road from the Forest Department to the Public Works Department, contending that the area was part of the Malayattoor–Idiyara Reserved Forest under a notification issued in 1895. He argued that the transfer did not amount to dereservation as required under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The NHAI countered that the land was classified as “road puramboke” since 1997 and not forest land. Earlier, a Division Bench in May 2024 had restrained forest officials from interfering with the road work, but a subsequent review in December 2024 left the land’s legal status unresolved.
Multiple affidavits from the State Government complicated matters. An affidavit filed in March 2025 by the Additional Chief Secretary described the area as reserved forest. However, another affidavit submitted on September 30, 2025, by the Chief Secretary stated that the area had been disafforested under a Travancore notification dated August 2, 1938, and confirmed by a 1996 order, leading to the present review.
It observed that “the vacillating and unclear stand taken by the State Government” made it necessary to narrate the full background of the dispute. The Court noted that “having initially stated in an affidavit filed pursuant to the directions of this Court that the stretch forms part of a reserved forest… the Chief Secretary now contends that by virtue of the notification dated 2 August 1938, the area was dereserved.”
The judges expressed concern over the contradictory affidavits and lack of supporting evidence. They stated that “no other supporting material reconciling the old and current maps has been produced” and that the situation at the site was “not clear.” The Court found that the State had failed to properly assist it, observing, “We express our disapproval of the manner in which the State Government has dealt with the matter and has failed to properly assist the Court.”
It further remarked that the location and classification of the land must be determined “with reference to the maps and records and not through affidavits or oral arguments.” The Court stated the importance of balancing environmental and developmental considerations, noting that the area was hilly and ecologically sensitive but also that “the expansion of the highway is also in public interest.”
The Bench refrained from issuing a declaration on the land’s status due to the conflicting stands and stated the need for a conclusive government order. It observed that “the issue ought to have been looked into by the State Government with some seriousness.”
Issuing interim directions, the Court ordered the NHAI to furnish to the Chief Secretary “the details and particulars of the area proposed for road widening in the Neriamangalam–Valara stretch, along with supporting materials.” Upon receiving these details, the Chief Secretary, acting on behalf of the State Government, must issue “a reasoned order regarding the status of this land, whether it is reserved forest or not.” This order, the Bench clarified, would be “subject to the outcome of the writ petition.”
The Court further directed that if the State Government concludes the land is not a reserved forest, it must “direct a joint team of the Revenue and Forest Departments on urgent basis, to demarcate the area and to identify the trees that will be affected.” The Chief Secretary was also instructed to ensure that “no tree is cleared, or any other area is affected, other than those measured in the joint survey.”
Additionally, the Bench authorized the Chief Secretary to issue directions regarding “safety measures for landslides, ecological protection, and other relevant environmental concerns.” The NHAI was made responsible for ensuring that “no work is carried out beyond what is permitted and referred to in the order passed by the State Government.”
“This order, passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is restricted to the particular stretch which is required for road widening. If it is ultimately decided at the hearing of the Petition that the concerned stretch of the road forms part of a reserved forest, the consequences of breach of the Act 69 of 1980 shall follow.” The petition was listed for further hearing on December 1, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Dr. K.P. Satheesan (Senior Advocate) along with P. Mohandas (Ernakulam), K. Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, Gokul D. Sudhakaran, R. Bhaskara Krishnan, and Bharath Mohan.
For the Respondents: K. Sandesh Raja for the petitioner in the writ, K. Gopalakrishna Kurup (Advocate General), N. Manoj Kumar (State Attorney), S. Kannan (Senior Government Pleader), and Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida, Lakshmi Sreedhar, Cindia S., Pooja Chandran, and Gayathri G.
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India & Anr. v. M.N. Jayachandran & Ors.
Case Number: RP No. 972 of 2025 in WP(C) No. 30391 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Syam Kumar V.M.
