R.Suresh Kumar vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 22671 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 23969 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     R.SURESH KUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O M.RAMAKRISHNAN
          NADAR, RESIDING AT THRIKKARTHIKA, KALLUVETTAMKUZHY,
          VIZHINJAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.

    2     SHEEJA K.S, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O R SURESH KUMAR,
          RESIDING AT THRIKKARTHIKA, KALLUVETTAMKUZHY,
          VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.

          SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN
          SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
          SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN
          SMT.SHREEJI R. NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

    1     DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

    2     THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND ACCUSATION UNIT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

    3     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
          VIZHINJAM INTERNATIONAL SEAPORT LIMITED,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.

          SMT.K.AMMINIKKUTTY, SR GP
          SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE, SC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23969 OF 2021
                                 2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners allege that even though 43 cents of land

and building were acquired by the respondents for the

purpose of construction of road to the "Vizhinjam

International Seaport", as early as in the year 2010, they

have not been yet afforded necessary compensation and

rehabilitation in terms of law. They say that they have,

therefore, preferred Ext.P4 representation before the third

respondent and seek that the same be directed to be taken

up and disposed of without any further delay.

2. In response, the learned standing counsel for the

third respondent, Sri.Vipin P.Varghese, submitted that if the

petitioners only require Ext.P4 to be taken up and disposed

of by the third respondent, there does not appear to be any

legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that this Court may

not make any affirmative declarations as to the entitlement

of the petitioners to any relief and leave it to the competent

Authority to take a decision on it in terms of law.

3. Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this

writ petition, directing the third respondent to take up

Ext.P4 representation of the petitioners and dispose of the WP(C) NO. 23969 OF 2021

same, after affording them an opportunity of being heard;

thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary

action thereon, adverting to Ext.P1 Notification, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, if, after the afore exercise, any benefit

is found eligible to the petitioners, the same shall be

disbursed to them without any avoidable delay thereafter.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE STU WP(C) NO. 23969 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23969/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION VIDE GO(MS) NO 42/10/F&PD DATED 29.5.2010

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3.2.2021

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT