R.I.Rajendran vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 9099 Ker

Kerala High Court

R.I.Rajendran vs State Of Kerala on 3 April, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                         WP(C) NO. 9353 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

    1     R.I.RAJENDRAN
          NARANGAPARAMBU, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.
    2     MOHANLAL O.R., S/O.R.K.RAVINDRAN, "SREYAS" 23/2828-A,
          PALLURUTHY P.O, COCHIN.
    3     P.P.AJAYAGHOSH, S/O.P.A.PARAMESWARAN, PUTHENEETTIL,
          PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADAM P.O.
    4     P.P.HARSHAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, PUTHENVEETTIL,
          PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADOM P.O.
    5     SUDHEENDRAN, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, SREYAS, 23/2828-A,
          PALLURUTHY PO, COCHIN.
    6     R.E.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.IKKANDAN,
          BHAGYA NIVAS, KANNEMPILLY, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O.
    7     P.S.SURESH BABU, S/O.P.A.SOMAN, PUTHANVEEDU, SAHAKARANA
          ROAD, POONURUNNI, VYTILLA P.O.
    8     MAHESHLAL E., S/O.NARAYANAN, OLIPARAMBU,
          SHANMUGHAPURAM, PACHALAM, KOCHI.
    9     SASIKALA, W/O.P.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN (LATE),
           POLATTUVEEDU EAST, APPANGAADU, NJARAKKAL PO.
    10    FRANCIS, S/O.RAPPEL, KALATHIL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPPU PO.
    11    JOSEPH, S/O.DAVID, KALATHIL VEEDU,
           PUTHUVYPPU PO, LIGHT HOUSE, VYPPIN.
    12    THILOTHAMA, D/O.YOHINI (LATE), VELIKKATHARA VEEDU,
          VALLARPADOM PO, PANAMBUKAADU.
    13    PRAHLADAN, S/O.ANANDAN, VELIKKATHARA,
          VALLARPADOM PO., PANAMBUKAD.
    14    K.K.THANKARAJ, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
          KANDATHIL VEEDU, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
    15    O.S.SUKUMARAN, S/O.SANKARAN,
           OILAPARAMBIL VEEDU, KUMBALAM.
    16    AMBIKA, W/O.SUPRAN (LATE) OILPARAMBIL VEEDU,
          EDAVANAKKAD P.O.
    17    NIRMALANANDAN, S/O.K.N.NARENDRAN, KALLUVEETTIL,
          "SREYAS", 23/2828-A, PALLURUTHY PO, COCHIN.
    18    MOHANAN, S/O.KOMAN, EDAYAPARAMBIL VEEDU, AROOKUTTY PO.
    19    O.K.BHUVANACHANDRAN, S/O.KOMAN, OLIPARAMBU VEEDU,
           NEDUNGAD, NAYARAMBALAM PO.
    20    P.K.SASIDHARAN, S/O.KOCHAIYAPAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, SOUTH
          KALAMASSERY, KALAMASSERY PO.
 WP(C) NO. 9353 OF 2016             2



    21    P.R.BABU, S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN,
          PUTHEVEETTIL, VALLARPADOM P.O.
    22    THANKAMMA, W/O.SOMASHEKHARAN, NADITHARA VEEDU,
           EAST APPANGADU, NJARAKKAL PO.
    23    MOHINI, D/O.KOCHU KRISHNAN, PUTHENVEEDU,
          MANAJANAKKADA EAS, NJARAKKAL PO.
    24    CLEETUS JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, CHATHEPRAMBIL VEEDU,
          VALLARPADOM PO, COCHIN.
    25    KOCHUPENNU, D/O.CHATHAN, KALATHIL VEEDU, PUTHUVYPPU PO,
          LIGHT HOUSE VYPPIN.
    26    K.J.IGNASIOUS, S/O.JOSEPH, KALATHIL VEEDU,
           VALLARPADOM PO, COCHIN.
    27    FRANCIS K.S., S/O.LATE SANDYAVY, KALATHIL VEEDU,
          PANAMBUKAD, VALLARPADOM PO, KOCHI.
    28     SURESH,S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MATTAPPILLY HOUSE, CHERAI PO.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.GEORGE WILLIAM
          SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM
          SMT.K.R.MONISHA


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY(REVENUE),
           GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LANES, ERNAKULAM.682 001
    3      COCHIN PORT TRUST, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
          COCHIN PORT TRUST 682 013
          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          SRI.K.ANAND SR.
          SMT.LATHA ANAND

          SRI.VENUGOPAL V. -GP ,
          SMT.LATHA ANAND -SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9353 OF 2016                      3



                                     JUDGMENT

The petitioners claim to be persons who were living on an

island in the backwaters of Kochi known as 'Ramanthuruthu'.

According to the petitioners, during the year 1982-83, the

petitioners were evicted from the said island for the expansion

of the Cochin Port Trust. Petitioners claim that they were given

very meager compensation at that time and despite assurance

of the Government of Kerala and Cochin Port Trust, at that

point of time, the petitioners were not properly rehabilitated

and they were also not offered jobs in the Cochin Port Trust as

promised at the time of eviction. According to the petitioners,

during the development of Gosree islands and the International

Container Transhipment Terminal, large areas were reclaimed

and the Ramanthuruthu island is now part of Vallarpadam and

there is easy road access to the erstwhile Ramanthuruthu

island. It is the case of the petitioner that, even today, large

extent in or around the erstwhile Ramanthuruthu island is

vacant on account of reclamation and these lands can be

allotted to the petitioners for their rehabilitation. The

petitioners also contend that, after the eviction of the

petitioners, there were four or five families living in

Ramanthuruthu and recently they have also been evicted after

offering them huge compensation. It is submitted that the

compensation offered to the five families, who had continued in

occupation of the Ramanthuruthu island, may be a guideline for

offering compensation to the petitioners also. Petitioners have

addressed various representations to various authorities and

these representations are on record before this Court as

Exts.P1,P3, P5 and P8. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners also pointed out Ext.P10, P11 and P12 news reports

to highlight the plight of the petitioners and the fact that the

petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation/further compensation.

2. Learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the Cochin Port Trust would submit that

there is absolutely no merit in the contentions taken by the

petitioners. It is submitted that, on the petitioners' own

showing, they were evicted from the Ramanthuruthu island

during the year 1982-83, after paying compensation which was

fixed at that time. It is submitted that if the petitioners were

aggrieved by the fixation of compensation at that point of time,

it was for them to take up the matter in accordance with the

law. It is submitted that, the petitioners cannot contend that

because higher compensation was awarded to families which

were continuing in occupation of lands in the erstwhile

Ramanthuruthu island were given higher compensation, the

petitioners should also be given higher compensation. It is

submitted that, even if there was any subsequent acquisition,

the same cannot be adopted as any yardstick for payment of the

compensation to the petitioners, who were admittedly evicted

in the year 1982-83. It is also pointed out that the petitioners

have no right or title over the land in question and even on

their own showing, they had occupied the Ramanthuruthu

island after their predecessors were evicted from the

Ernakulam railway and the Ernakulam goods station.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned

Standing Counsel appearing for the Cochin Port Trust, I am of

the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for

grant of any relief. On the petitioners' own showing, they were

evicted from the Ramanthuruthu island during the year 1982-

83. Though it is contended that some compensation were also

paid to them, it is not clear from the records as to whether the

petitioners had any title to the lands which were allegedly

under their occupation. The petitioners cannot, now maintain a

writ petition on the basis of the fact that some other families,

who were occupying the Ramanthuruthu island were given

higher compensation. They also cannot have a claim for

allotment of land as there is no Government order or other

documents proving that they have offered alternative land at

the time of their eviction. For all these reasons, I am of the

view that the petitioners have not made any case for grant of

any relief, including the relief of consideration of any

representation made to the authorities.

The writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9353/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/12/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIOENR TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT P2-                 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04/05/2015 TO
                       EXT   P1    REPRESENTATION   ISSUED   BY   TEH
                       TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK.
EXT P3-                TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONERS DATED 20/02/2015 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT P3. EXT P5- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 22/04/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.

EXT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT P5. EXT P7- TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 13/10/2015 TO EXT P5 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

EXT P8- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26/06/2002 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT P9- TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 12/11/2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23/01/2016.

EXT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 3/2/2016.

EXT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 3/2/2016.