Mangaluru: In response to MP Capt. Brijesh Chowta's request to arrange special train services between Mangaluru-Bengaluru-Hubbali for the Diwali festival, the Railway Ministry has approved a new train service.

The Hubbali-Mangaluru special train (07311/07312) will depart from Hubbali station on 2nd November at 4 PM, arriving at Yeshwanthpur at 11:25 PM and reaching Mangaluru the next day at 11:45 AM.

The Mangaluru-Hubbali train (No. 07312) will depart from Mangaluru at 1 PM on 3rd November, arriving at Yeshwanthpur at 10 PM and reaching Hubbali the next morning at 7 AM.

A large number of people from the coastal region live in Bengaluru, and it is common for them to travel frequently between Mangaluru and Bengaluru during festivals like Dasara and Diwali. Due to the high number of passengers during the festive season, it becomes difficult to get bus tickets, making it problematic for people to travel to their hometowns. Hence, the MP requested a special train service between both stations during Diwali.

Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw, Minister of State for Railways V. Somanna, and railway department officials responded positively to this request, and Capt. Brijesh Chowta expressed his gratitude to them.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Kochi (PTI): The Kerala High Court has set aside crucial stages of the land acquisition process for the proposed Sabarimala greenfield airport, holding that the state failed to properly assess the minimum land actually required for the project.

On December 30, 2022, the state government issued an order granting sanction for the acquisition of 2,570 acres of land, comprising the Cheruvally Estate and an additional 307 acres located outside it.

Justice C Jayachandran, delivering the judgment on a writ petition filed by Ayana Charitable Trust (formerly Gospel for Asia) and its managing trustee Dr Siny Punnoose, ruled the decision-making process under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, was legally flawed.

The court, in its December 19 order, directed the state to restart the process by conducting a fresh social impact assessment limited to examining the minimum land requirement, followed by a fresh appraisal by the expert group and reconsideration by the government.

The petitioners had challenged several government actions, including the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report, the expert committee appraisal, the state government order approving the acquisition, and the subsequent notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act.

The land in question, mainly the Cheruvally Estate in Pathanamthitta district, is proposed to be acquired for building a new airport intended to serve Sabarimala pilgrims.

The court found that while the state is entitled to acquire land for public purposes, the law clearly mandates that only the "absolute bare minimum" extent of land required for a project can be acquired.

According to the court, this mandatory requirement under Sections 4(4)(d), 7(5)(b), and 8(1)(c) of the 2013 Act was not properly complied with.

Justice Jayachandran observed that the authorities had shown "manifest non-application of mind" in assessing how much land was genuinely necessary.

As a result, the SIA report, the Expert Committee report and the government order were declared invalid to the extent they failed to address this crucial requirement.

Since the Section 11 notification could only be issued after a valid completion of these steps, it too was quashed.

On the petitioners' allegation of fraud on power and colourable exercise of authority, the court did not give a final finding. It held that this issue is closely linked to determining the minimum land required and can only be examined after that exercise is properly completed.

Before concluding, the court suggested that for technically complex projects like airports, the state should include technical experts in the SIA team to ensure informed and lawful decision-making.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, keeping other issues raised by the petitioners open for future consideration.