V.R Das vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14583 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
       WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
                              WP(C) NO. 26856 OF 2014
PETITIONERS:

       1          V.R DAS,
                  KUNNUKALAYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.

       2          VINOD .D,
                  KUNNUKALAYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.

       3          VINEETH D.,
                  KUNNUKALAYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.

       4          BINO .D
                  KUNNUKALAYIL HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., KOTTAYAM.

                  BY ADVS.
                  SRI.JOMY GEORGE
                  SRI.LITHIN THOMAS
                  SRI.SEBASTIAN THOMAS



RESPONDENTS:

       1          STATE OF KERALA,
                  REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
                  SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

       2          THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

       3          SPECIAL THAHASILDAR,(L.A), KOTAYAM.

       4          THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                  ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA
                  LTD., 2ND FLOOR, M.V.ROAD PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI.

                  BY ADV. SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, GP


THIS       WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26856 OF 2014         2




                  P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    -------------------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.26856 of 2014
            ----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 14th day of July, 2021


                           JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the

following prayers:

a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant all benefits of Exhibit P-1 scheme, including shifting charges and Rs.36,000/- each to the petitioners.

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to grant the full benefits of the scheme and admit the different receipts from various authorities, to evince the operation of the unit.

And

c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It is submitted that the 1st petitioner

was conducting a manufacturing unit under the name

and style "Das Ventilators, Kumaranaloor" in 3.50

cents of land situated in Ward No.2 of

Kumaranalloor Grama Panchayat. According to the

petitioners, petitioners 2 to 4 were the employees

of the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that, out of

the above 3.50 cents of land, 2.20 cents of

property and factory building was acquired for

constructing Kumaranallor Railway Overbridge. The

grievance of the petitioner is that the full

compensation as per Ext.P1 scheme for

rehabilitation and resettlement policy of

Government of Kerala is not given to the

petitioner. According to the petitioners, the 1st

petitioner was given only the land value and the

other petitioners were not given any amount on

account of loss of job. According to the

petitioners, they are entitled, some more amount

as per Ext.P1 package. The learned Government

Pleader after getting instructions submitted that

after conducting an enquiry, Ext.P5 order is

passed by the Special Tahsildar. The learned

Government Pleader submitted that in Ext.P5, it is

clearly stated that only a portion of the building

was taken and it is also stated that the 1 st

petitioner can function the workshop even after

the acquisition. The learned Government Pleader

also submitted that at the time of inspection,

there is no documents or evidence produced to show

that such an establishment was functioning. This

is disputed by the petitioner. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submitted that the 1st

petitioner has got documentary evidence to show

that the establishment was working. The

petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 order passed by

the 3rd respondent.

3. According to the petitioners, the

establishment of the 1st petitioner was functioning

and petitioners 2 to 4 were employees under the 1st

petitioner. According to the 3rd respondent, there

was no such establishment and there was no loss of

job as alleged by petitioners 2 to 4. Ext.P5 is

the intimation sent by the 3rd respondent. The

learned Government Pleader also submitted that the

petitioners approached this Court after accepting

the compensation and after surrendering the

building to the 4th respondent. These are disputed

facts and the same cannot be decided by this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

According to me, the 2nd respondent can look into

this matter after hearing the petitioners and all

other affected parties. The petitioners can

produce all documents before the 2nd respondent and

2nd respondent will consider the same and pass

appropriate orders about the eligibility of the

petitioners to to get compensation as per Ext.P1

Scheme. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed

of with the following directions:

1. The petitioners are free to submit a representation along with documentary evidence to establish that the

petitioners are entitled the benefits of Ext.P1 scheme before the 2nd respondent within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Once such a representation along with the documents are received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent will look into the documents and representation. The 2nd respondent, will hear the petitioners and other affected parties and thereafter will decide about the eligibility of the petitioners to get compensation as per Ext.P1.

3. The above exercise should be completed by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE LEK

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO.419/2011/RD ALONG WITH ANNEXURE OF PROPOSED COMPENSATION PACKAGE DATED 15/11/2011.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01/10/2013 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/05/2013 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 22/10/2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 6/11/2013 SENT BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DATED 20/8/2013 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 11/3/1980.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 1/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER.