Kerala High Court Pulls Up State Over Conflicting Affidavits On Whether NH-85 Stretch Falls In Reserved Forest

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M issued the direction while considering a review petition filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking modification of an interim order which held that the land in question was prima facie part of a reserved forest.

The dispute deals with the 13-kilometre stretch in Neriamangalam–Valara segment of NH-85 in Idukki district, part of the Kochi–Madurai corridor. The petitioner contended that the land on both sides of the highway forms part of the Malayattoor–Idiyara Reserve Forest, declared under a Travancore notification issued in 1895, and that no valid dereservation has since occurred.

NHAI on the other hand submitted a Travancore Government Notification dated 2 August 1938 and contended that the notification deforested the land under Section 20 of the Travancore Forest Regulation II of 1068, and that the road has existed as a public highway since the 1930s. The authority said that because of the Court's earlier order treating the land as reserved forest, construction work on the highway had come to a halt.

The Bench expressed disapproval of the State Government's handling of the matter, noting that it had filed two affidavits taking diametrically opposite stands.

In March 2025, the Additional Chief Secretary affirmed on oath that the area remained a reserved forest and that no dereservation notification had been issued. However, in September 2025, the Chief Secretary filed another affidavit claiming that the land was dereserved in 1938 and that the earlier stand was incorrect.

The Bench expressed its disapproval at this, stating,

“The Writ Petitioner has produced maps with geo-markings to reconcile the earlier records. No such effort is taken by the State Government for producing the maps to demarcate the area. The location of the land will have to be authoritatively determined with reference to the maps and records and not through affidavits or oral arguments. It is not in dispute that the area in question is a hilly area with thick vegetation and there is an ecological angle to the subject matter. The expansion of the highway is also in public interest. In these circumstances, the issue ought to have been looked into by the State Government with some seriousness.”

While refraining from declaring the land either forest or revenue land, the Court issued interim direction to NHAI to furnish detailed plans on proposed widening of the Neriamangalam- Valara stretch to Chief Secretary. It further directed the Chief Secretary to pass a reasoned order regarding the status of the land after reconciling all records and materials.

The Court further added that if the area is found not to be forest land, a joint team of Revenue and Forest Departments must demarcate the area to identify the trees that will be affected. The Chief Secretary is also directed to issue directions regarding safety measures for landslides, ecological protection and environmental concerns.

The NHAI Project Director is directed to ensure that no work is carried out beyond the scope of the Government's order.

The Bench clarified that the interim relief is limited to the disputed stretch required for road widening and does not amount to a declaration that the entire area covered by the 1938 notification is non-forest land.

The matter will be posted in the hearing board from December 1.

Case Title: The Project Director & Others v M N Jayachandran & Others.

Case No: RP 972/ 2025 in WP(C) 30391/ 2024

Counsel for Review Petitioner: P Mohandas, K Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, Gokul D Sudhakaran, R Bhaskara Krishnan, Bharath Mohan

Counsel for Respondent: K Sandhesh Raja, Manoj Kumat (State Attorney), Deepu Thankan, Ummul Fida, Lakshmi Sreedhar, Cindia S, Pooja Chandran, Gayathri G, Sandesh Raja, B G Bidan Chandran (NHAI)