Kerala High Court
Sri.Rajesh A vs District Collector on 8 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:50247
WA No. 1656 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1656 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.38997
OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SRI.RAJESH A
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O MR. AYYAPPAN NAIR,M/S TRIVENI
AGENCIES, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-
682024
BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
SMT.K.N.RAJANI
SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SMT.ANILA PETER
SMT.SIMI S. ALI
SMT.SARITHA K.S.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU PO., KOCHI-
682030
2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDARL.ANO.1
KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT,KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM -
682030
3 KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD
8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, MARINE
DRIVE,ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682011 REPRESENTED BY ITS
2025:KER:50247
WA No. 1656 of 2025
2
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
4 DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, 38/217/B1, SOUTH
RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM-682016,REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP T K SHAJAHAN , (R1, R2), ADV P A AUGUSTINE SC
FOR R3, ADV LATHA ANAND SC FOR R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:50247
WA No. 1656 of 2025
3
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & P.M. MANOJ, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1656 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025.
JUDGMENT
P.M. Manoj, J :
The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The writ appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.06.2025 in WP(C) No.38997 of 2016.
2. The short facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are as follows :
The appellant's father was the tenant of a building in Cochin Corporation bearing No.34/1789 in Survey No.9/7B-2 of Edappally Village. The appellant's father was conducting a retail business in Plywood, glass and ancillary products. After the death of the father, the appellant inherited the business. In fact, the premises in question were utilised as a godown for the appellant's business. In July, 2014, the 4th respondent acquired the premises in question for the purpose of Metro Rail. Even though the appellant is a tenant, the 2nd respondent granted compensation of Rs.55,000/- on 06.06.2014 on the application preferred by the appellant on 31.05.2014. Since it is a direct purchase scheme, being dissatisfied with the amount, the appellant preferred Ext.P3 representation for reworking the compensation, but it was rejected as per Ext.P4. Against which the 2025:KER:50247 WA No. 1656 of 2025 4 appellant has preferred a writ petition before this Court and obtained judgment dated 26.07.2016 in WP(C) No.22735 of 2015. In the said judgment, a direction was given to consider the eligibility of the appellant to claim the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement package approved by the Government after affording sufficient opportunity to the stake holders within a stipulated period. Consequent to that, by proceedings dated 16.06.2018, the District Collector declined the request of the petitioner after considering the relevant facts involved in it and against that the writ petition was preferred.
3. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that though he was entitled to a higher compensation package for commercial losses, he was granted only a meagre compensation of Rs.55,000/- against the RR package which was produced as Ext.P8 in the writ petition. Out of Rs.55,000/-, Rs.25,000/- was for the transportation of goods from the godown. The remaining amount, at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month for six months, was for the purpose of availing another room for rent. However, the claim of the appellant was Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of livelihood as the godown acquired was an essential part of his business as the materials were stocked for sale in the godown. The said godown was just opposite the showroom on the opposite side of the road. Thereby it was contended that the acquisition directly affected his livelihood. Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the package.
4. Per contra, the 3rd respondent contended before the learned Single Judge that the amount was granted towards shifting and rental for six 2025:KER:50247 WA No. 1656 of 2025 5 months in tune with the package, especially under the 2nd Schedule to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The payment of Rs.5 lakhs was contemplated to the commercial tenants only if the acquisition resulted in the loss of livelihood. In the case of the appellant, his business was not affected by the acquisition of the godown as the appellant had acquired another premises for maintaining the godown and his business is running without any loss of livelihood. Even at the time of inspection, the premises were vacant. That itself shows that the acquisition did not affect the business, thereby causing no loss of livelihood.
5. The contention of the learned Government Pleader was on the same lines. The RR package was being paid to the 'project affected persons' who lost their building due to acquisition and whose primary source of income was affected and had no other income. After due consideration of the facts and norms of the RR package, the District Collector granted Rs.55,000/- towards the shifting charges and future rent for six months. Moreover, his further claim has already been rejected by the District Collector on the ground that he is continuing his business without affecting the acquisition.
6. After considering all these facts, the learned Single Judge entered into a finding that the acquisition did not result in loss of livelihood as far as the petitioner is concerned. Even after the acquisition, he continued to run the business and earn his livelihood. The expression, "loss of livelihood"
is an extreme situation in which the acquisition has resulted in depriving 2025:KER:50247 WA No. 1656 of 2025 6 the occupant of the acquired premises from earning his livelihood. Only certain inconveniences are caused to the appellant by acquiring the godown towards which he was adequately compensated. Hence, the proceedings of the District Collector cannot be said to be improper or incorrect. In those premises, the writ petition was dismissed.
7. Against the findings of the learned Single Judge, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was engaged in the business of retailing plywood, glass and ancillary products. The premises acquired by the 3rd respondent was a godown, which is an essential and integral part of the business. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge.
8. We have heard Sri.Anil S Raj for the appellant, Sri.Augustine Areekat for the 3rd respondent, Sri.T.K. Shajahan, learned Government Pleader for R1 and R2 and Smt. Latha Anand for R4.
9. We have elaborately considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, we could conceive only certain inconvenience caused to the appellant due to the acquisition of his godown. His business is running successfully even after the acquisition. Moreover, he is only a tenant. Even then, the 1st respondent has considered the inconvenience caused to the appellant and granted monetary assistance of Rs.25,000/- towards shifting of the materials from the godown so acquired to a new one and also Rs.5,000/- as rent for six months for the new premises. By the time of inspection, the appellant had shifted his materials. Thereby, the inspection wing could not find any materials in the godown.
2025:KER:50247 WA No. 1656 of 2025 7 That itself shows that there is no loss of livelihood except for certain inconvenience caused to his business, since the showroom and godown were on the opposite side of the road.
The learned counsel's argument towards establishing the loss of livelihood does not persuade us to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge and we do not find any ground to interfere. The appeal fails and it is dismissed.
Sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE Sd/-
P.M. MANOJ JUDGE ttb