K.Dinesh Kumar vs The Chief Executive Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 2122 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 6215 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          K.DINESH KUMAR
          AGED 60 YEARS
          S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, MANAGING PARTNER, INDIRA MEDICAL
          SUPPLIES, T.C.9/1334, SASTHAMANGALAM, RESIDING AT
          T.C. NO.7/1359, SREEHARI NILAYAM, VETTAMUKKU,
          KOOTAMVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          BY ADV T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
          KERALA ROAD FUND BOARD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANA KUNNU, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

    3     G. MOHANAN
          AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN CHETTIAR,
          RESIDING AT T.C. 9/1571, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU,
          SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695010.


OTHER PRESENT:

          SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 6215 OF 2022                2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he is occupying a

building in the land now sought to be acquired for

the purpose of widening the "Sasthamangalam Main

Road" and concedes that said building is owned by the

3rd respondent.

2. Shri.T.K.Ananda Krishnan, learned counsel for

the petitioner, argued that since his client has been

in occupation of the building in question for the

last more than five decades, he is entitled to

compensation under the provisions of Section 3(C)(vi)

of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement

Act, 2013 ('Fair Compensation Act' for short); and

pointed out that he has preferred Ext.P4 request

before the 2nd respondent - District Collector for

such purpose. He thus prayed that Ext.P4 be directed

to be taken up and disposed of by the 2 nd respondent,

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. In response, the learned Senior Government

Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that she does

not have instructions if Ext.P4 is pending and added

that, in any event of the matter, there can also be

an issue as to whether same is deserving to be

considered by the District Collector or by any other

competent Authority. She then submitted that the

claim of the petitioner to compensation under Section

3(C)(vi) of the 'Fair Compensation Act', may also not

be spoken affirmatively by this Court, since the

various applicable and imperative criteria as

mandated therein, will have to be established by him.

4. Smt.K.Amminikutty concluded her submissions

saying that the petitioner's entitlement to any

compensation will depend upon the applicable

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Package (R and R

Package) and thus prayed that this Court may not

direct the 2nd respondent to allow Ext.P4 and leave it

to the said Authority to decide all aspects in its

proper perspective.

5. There can be no doubt that this Court, while

acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, is inhibited from considering the merits of

the contentions of the petitioner on its merits. The

issue whether the 2nd respondent is competent to

consider Ext.P4, or whether it has to be so done by

another competent Authority, are also matters which

this Court need not speak affirmatively at this

stage.

6. Suffice to say, the petitioner relies on the

provisions of the 'Fair Compensation Act',

particularly Section 28 thereof, to assert that 2nd

respondent is the competent Authority.

In the afore circumstances, without entering

into the merits of any of the rival contentions of

the parties, I order this writ petition to the

limited extent of directing the 2nd respondent to take

up Ext.P4 application of the petitioner and dispose

of the same, after affording him as also the 3rd

respondent an opportunity of being heard; thus

culminating in an appropriate order and necessary

action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that this Court is only

concerned about the compensation claimed by the

petitioner and therefore, that widening of the road

and dispossession of the property as per the

provisions of law is not in any manner interdicted.

It is also made further clear that District

Collector will be at liberty to consider Ext.P4 with

an open mind, without being trammeled by any

observations of this Court, including as to whether

it is maintainable before him.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/24.2

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6215/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF RENT DATED 14.02.2019 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF SOCIAL ASSESSMENT STUDY BY THE GOVERNMENT APPOINTED AGENCY.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2ND DECEMBER 2021 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.