Kerala High Court

Sri.Rajesh A vs District Collector on 8 July, 2025

Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

                                                   2025:KER:50247
WA No. 1656 of 2025
                               1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

                                   &

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

    TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1947

                        WA NO. 1656 OF 2025

         AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.38997
                  OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

            SRI.RAJESH A
            AGED 44 YEARS, S/O MR. AYYAPPAN NAIR,M/S TRIVENI
            AGENCIES, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-
            682024


            BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ
                     SMT.K.N.RAJANI
                     SMT.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
                     SMT.ANILA PETER
                     SMT.SIMI S. ALI
                     SMT.SARITHA K.S.




RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU PO., KOCHI-
            682030

    2       THE SPECIAL TAHSILDARL.ANO.1
            KOCHI METRO RAIL PROJECT,KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM -
            682030

    3       KOCHI METRO RAIL LTD
            8TH FLOOR, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE, MARINE
            DRIVE,ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682011 REPRESENTED BY ITS
                                                            2025:KER:50247
WA No. 1656 of 2025
                                    2

               MANAGING DIRECTOR.

    4          DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED
               EASTERN ENTRY TOWER, 2ND FLOOR, 38/217/B1, SOUTH
               RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM-682016,REPRESENTED BY ITS
               MANAGING DIRECTOR.



OTHER PRESENT:

               SR GP T K SHAJAHAN , (R1, R2), ADV P A AUGUSTINE SC
               FOR R3, ADV LATHA ANAND SC FOR R4


        THIS    WRIT   APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR    ADMISSION   ON
08.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                            2025:KER:50247
WA No. 1656 of 2025
                                    3


      Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & P.M. MANOJ, JJ.
                ----------------------------------------------------
                         W.A. No. 1656 of 2025
                ----------------------------------------------------
                Dated this the 8th day of July, 2025.


                                JUDGMENT

P.M. Manoj, J :

The writ petitioner is the appellant herein. The writ appeal is

preferred being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.06.2025 in WP(C)

No.38997 of 2016.

2. The short facts relevant for consideration of this appeal are as

follows :

The appellant's father was the tenant of a building in Cochin

Corporation bearing No.34/1789 in Survey No.9/7B-2 of Edappally Village.

The appellant's father was conducting a retail business in Plywood, glass

and ancillary products. After the death of the father, the appellant inherited

the business. In fact, the premises in question were utilised as a godown

for the appellant's business. In July, 2014, the 4th respondent acquired the

premises in question for the purpose of Metro Rail. Even though the

appellant is a tenant, the 2nd respondent granted compensation of

Rs.55,000/- on 06.06.2014 on the application preferred by the appellant on

31.05.2014. Since it is a direct purchase scheme, being dissatisfied with

the amount, the appellant preferred Ext.P3 representation for reworking

the compensation, but it was rejected as per Ext.P4. Against which the 2025:KER:50247

appellant has preferred a writ petition before this Court and obtained

judgment dated 26.07.2016 in WP(C) No.22735 of 2015. In the said

judgment, a direction was given to consider the eligibility of the appellant

to claim the benefit of rehabilitation and resettlement package approved by

the Government after affording sufficient opportunity to the stake holders

within a stipulated period. Consequent to that, by proceedings dated

16.06.2018, the District Collector declined the request of the petitioner

after considering the relevant facts involved in it and against that the writ

petition was preferred.

3. The contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge

was that though he was entitled to a higher compensation package for

commercial losses, he was granted only a meagre compensation of

Rs.55,000/- against the RR package which was produced as Ext.P8 in the

writ petition. Out of Rs.55,000/-, Rs.25,000/- was for the transportation of

goods from the godown. The remaining amount, at the rate of Rs.5,000/-

per month for six months, was for the purpose of availing another room for

rent. However, the claim of the appellant was Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of

livelihood as the godown acquired was an essential part of his business as

the materials were stocked for sale in the godown. The said godown was

just opposite the showroom on the opposite side of the road. Thereby it

was contended that the acquisition directly affected his livelihood.

Therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of the package.

4. Per contra, the 3rd respondent contended before the learned Single

Judge that the amount was granted towards shifting and rental for six 2025:KER:50247

months in tune with the package, especially under the 2nd Schedule to the

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The payment of Rs.5 lakhs was

contemplated to the commercial tenants only if the acquisition resulted in

the loss of livelihood. In the case of the appellant, his business was not

affected by the acquisition of the godown as the appellant had acquired

another premises for maintaining the godown and his business is running

without any loss of livelihood. Even at the time of inspection, the premises

were vacant. That itself shows that the acquisition did not affect the

business, thereby causing no loss of livelihood.

5. The contention of the learned Government Pleader was on the

same lines. The RR package was being paid to the 'project affected persons'

who lost their building due to acquisition and whose primary source of

income was affected and had no other income. After due consideration of

the facts and norms of the RR package, the District Collector granted

Rs.55,000/- towards the shifting charges and future rent for six months.

Moreover, his further claim has already been rejected by the District

Collector on the ground that he is continuing his business without affecting

the acquisition.

6. After considering all these facts, the learned Single Judge entered

into a finding that the acquisition did not result in loss of livelihood as far

as the petitioner is concerned. Even after the acquisition, he continued to

run the business and earn his livelihood. The expression, "loss of livelihood"

is an extreme situation in which the acquisition has resulted in depriving 2025:KER:50247

the occupant of the acquired premises from earning his livelihood. Only

certain inconveniences are caused to the appellant by acquiring the

godown towards which he was adequately compensated. Hence, the

proceedings of the District Collector cannot be said to be improper or

incorrect. In those premises, the writ petition was dismissed.

7. Against the findings of the learned Single Judge, it is contended

by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant was engaged in the

business of retailing plywood, glass and ancillary products. The premises

acquired by the 3rd respondent was a godown, which is an essential and

integral part of the business. This aspect was not properly appreciated by

the learned Single Judge.

8. We have heard Sri.Anil S Raj for the appellant, Sri.Augustine

Areekat for the 3rd respondent, Sri.T.K. Shajahan, learned Government

Pleader for R1 and R2 and Smt. Latha Anand for R4.

9. We have elaborately considered the arguments put forth by the

learned counsel for the appellant. However, we could conceive only certain

inconvenience caused to the appellant due to the acquisition of his godown.