Kerala High Court

P.K. Sajeesh vs The District Collector on 20 June, 2024

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

    THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE    2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946

                        WP(C) NO. 40847 OF 2023

PETITIONER:

              P.K. SAJEESH AGED 55 YEARS S/O. KARUNAKARAN, RESIDING
              AT KARUNA, KALLITTUNADA, P.O. GOVINDAPURAM,
              KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
              BY ADVS. P.A.HARISH V.V.SURENDRAN SANIKA.V.S.

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE
              DISTRICT COLLECTOR, POST CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
              PIN - 673020
     2        THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE
              SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, POST CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE,
              PIN - 673020
 ADDL.R3*     THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
              OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC
              OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, OPP.ZOO VIKHAS BHAVAN
              P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695033
              *(THE ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED
              AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2024 IN THE WRIT PETITION)
              BY GP-DEEPA V

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD             ON
20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No. 40847 of 2023                :2:




                       VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
            ===========================
                   WP(C) No. 40847 of 2023
            ============================
              Dated this the 20th day of June, 2024

                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P13

order of the 2nd respondent, wherein his request for rehabilitation

compensation has been declined.

2. It is averred that the petitioner's father has took on lease

a room bearing No.21/1007 situated in Re.Sy. No.453 of

Panniyankara Village, Kozhikode Taluk from the 5th respondent and

her children Sathyapalan and Sathyaprabha in the year 1995. Since

then the petitioner's father was conducting a business in the said

room in the name and style 'Karuna Stores'. On the death of the

father, petitioner inherited the tenancy right over the property and

attorned with the landlords. He was assessed by the Kozhikode

Corporation for professional tax and has been renewing the D & O

license issued in his favour. Ext.P1 is the tax receipt dated

13.03.2017 issued by the Corporation of Kozhikode evidencing

payment of professional tax. Ext.P2 is the receipt dated 15.03.2017

evidencing payment of renewal charges for renewal of the D & O

license. Ext.P3 is the certificate issued by the Corporation of

Kozhikode intimating that the petitioner has been occupying the

building from 2010-11 till 2016-17.

3. The shop room occupied by the petitioner along with

other shop rooms were acquired for the purpose of construction of a

railway overbridge at Panniyankara, Kozhikode. The land acquisition

authority decided to pay rehabilitation compensation to the tenants

as well. Accordingly, petitioner surrendered the room to the land

acquisition authorities who entered his name as Serial No.188 in the

compensation. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P4 affidavit stating

that he is running the shop for the past more than 20 years. The 2 nd

respondent deputed a Revenue Inspector to verify the facts and he

has reported that the said room was occupied by one Mohammed

Faizal and the said room has been remaining closed for several

years. Based on Ext.P5 report, the 2nd respondent refused to

consider the request of the petitioner for grant of rehabilitation

compensation. Thereupon petitioner has preferred Ext.P6

representation in this regard, and along with Ext.P6 all materials

documents to prove his case were produced before the authorities.

Thereupon the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to conduct

a re-inspection. Thereupon Ext.P7 report was submitted. In Ext.P7

report, it is specifically stated that the petitioner was using the said

shop room for running a fancy shop from 2010-11 to 2016-17, and

he has been issued with Municipal license during the said period,

and that during 2017-18 the license has been renewed. A

subsequent report was also submitted by the Special Revenue

Inspector which is produced as Ext.P8, wherein the entitlement of

the petitioner for rehabilitation compensation has been found to be

sustainable. But without taking into consideration any of these

aspects, by Ext.P9 the request of the petitioner was rejected. Against

which the petitioner filed a writ petition as WP(C) No.27446 of 2018

which was disposed of setting aside Ext.P9 and directing

reconsideration in the light of Exts.P7 and P8 report. Without

considering any of these aspects the request of the petitioner has

been rejected by Ext.P13, for the reason that at the time of

inspection the shop room was found to be closed.

4. The learned Government Pleader on the strength of the

counter affidavit filed submits that the shop room was closed, and

the report indicates that the business run in the said shop room

cannot be considered as a primary source of livelihood for the

petitioner.

5. I have considered the rival contentions from both sides.

The petitioner has produced documents including Exts.P1, P2 and P4

before the 2nd respondent to substantiate his contention that he is

the tenant in the said premises. Ext.P7 report specifically states that

he has been running the business in the said shop room from 2010-

11 till 2016-17, and license have been issued by the Municipal

Corporation and that the license was renewed for the year 2017-18

also. Ext.P8 report submitted by the Special Revenue Inspector also

reported that the petitioner has been running the business in the

said shop room, and recommended that the rehabilitation

compensation should be paid to the petitioner.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the

view that rejection of the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P13 for

the reason that, at the time of inspection the shop room was found

to be closed cannot be accepted. Therefore, in view of the

documents produced along with the writ petition which was also

submitted before the 2nd respondent, and also based on the report

submitted by the Revenue authorities themselves which is produced

as Exts.P7 and P8, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for

rehabilitation compensation being the tenant of the shop room

bearing No.21/1007 situated in Re.Sy. No.453 of Panniyankara

Village, Kozhikode Taluk. Accordingly Ext.P13 is set aside with a

consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to sanction

rehabilitation compensation due as per law to the petitioner within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. It is made clear that if the petitioner's name is to be

included in the list sanctioned by the additional 3 rd respondent, Land

Revenue Commissioner, necessary orders shall be passed by the

Land Revenue Commissioner including the name of the petitioner in

the list of eligible tenants entitled for rehabilitation compensation.

With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

sbk/-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40847/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 13.03.2017 ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER TOWARDS PAYMENT OF PROFESSIONAL TAX Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2017 BEING THE RENEWAL CHARGES OF THE D & O LICENSE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION DATED 08.5.2017 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY THE PETITIONER AND DRAWN IN A STAMP PAPER WORTH RS. 100/- DATED 13.03.2017 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 05.04.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICER ATTACHED THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.05.2017 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 03.10.2017 FILED BY MR. J.R. SHINE ROSE HEAD CLERK AND REVENUE INSPECTOR IN CHARGE, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)NH) KOZHIKODE AND OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY P.S. VIJAYAN, SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR DATED 16.05.2018 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.06.2018 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 27446/2018 DATED 13.08.2018 Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 28.10.2019 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) 27446/2018 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C) 27446/2018 DATED 09.01.2023 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.09.2023