Writ appeal dismissed. The High Court held that since the Government had provided rehabilitation apartments and sufficient opportunity to occupy them, it is within Government's jurisdiction and no error was committed in dismissing the petition claiming land assignment.
Writ appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937
WA.No. 2021 of 2015 () IN WP(C).5683/2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5683/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 11-08-2015
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1. PONNAMMA
2. RETNABHAI
3. K.SIVAPRASAD
4. R.SIVARAJAN
5. KUNJUPILLAI
6. HARIDASAN
7. DIVAKARAN
8. SASIDHARAN ATTUKAL PUTHENVEEDU, NEAR EMPIRE COMPANY KANNIMMEL NAGAR, VADAKKUM BHAGAM, ERAVIPURAM PO KOLLAM-691 011.
WA NO.2021/2015
-2-
9. LILLY ATTUKAL PUTHENVEEDU, NEAR EMPIRE COMPANY KANNIMMEL NAGAR, VADAKKUM BHAGAM, ERAVIPURAM PO KOLLAM-691 011.
10. DAKSHAYANI ATTUKAL PUTHENVEEDU, NEAR EMPIRE COMPANY KANNIMMEL NAGAR, VADAKKUM BHAGAM, ERAVIPURAM PO KOLLAM-691 011.
BY ADV. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 8 & 9:
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
4. RE-SURVEY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RE-SURVEY OFFICE, KOLLAM.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, MUNDAKKAL, KOLLAM.
6. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, CANAL SECTION KOLLAM.
7. KOLLAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE KOLLAM.
8. BENJAMIN
9. SEBASTIAN
BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS R8 & 9 BY SRI.AVANEESH KOYIKKARA BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS R8 & 9 BY SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO.2021/15
APPENDIX
APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.5730/2015 DATED 10.4.2015.
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
Rp
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
================
W.A. No. 2021 of 2015
==================
Dated this, the 22nd day of September, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
Petitioners in WP(C) No.5683/2012 are in appeal challenging judgment dated 11/8/2015 by which the writ petition filed by them has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
W.A. No.2021/15
-:2:-
similarly placed persons were in occupation of thodu puramboke, it was decided to provide them rehabilitation facilities and to evict such occupants to enable the Irrigation Department to take necessary steps to prevent obstruction caused to the thodu. It is stated that 881 families were residing in the thodu puramboke and residential flats were constructed for them. 676 families were already given the benefit of the scheme as they opted for occupying the residential flats. Petitioners further insisted that they should be given 4 cents of land along with `3,00,000/- for construction of the building as had been given to 83 persons. It is submitted on behalf of the Government that though 83 persons were given land and money for construction of building, on account of paucity of land available for distribution, the same project could not be proceeded further and had to be limited to 83 persons. As far as the rest of the persons who are eligible for rehabilitation is concerned, they were provided with the residential buildings which were newly constructed for the aforesaid purpose.
W.A. No.2021/15
-:3:-
petitioners, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the same was dismissed.
W.A. No.2021/15
-:4:-
this Court should interfere in the procedure adopted by the Government in this regard. Under such circumstances, we do not find any merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. It is pointed out that the apartment is having only 675 sq.ft which is not suitable for residence of the petitioners.
The manner in which the rehabilitation measures are to be undertaken is purely within the realm of jurisdiction of the Government and the Government having provided sufficient opportunity for the petitioners to opt for such residential premises, we do not think that there is any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge by dismissing the writ petition.
We do not find any ground in the appeal warranting interference at the appellate stage. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
Rp
22/09/2015
//True Copy//
PS to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere when the Government has already provided adequate rehabilitation apartments to occupants of puramboke land.
Whether the size of the apartment offered (675 sq.ft) is sufficient to warrant judicial interference in the Government's procedure.
Ponnamma
Retnabhais
K. Sivaprasad
R. Sivarajan
Kunjupilla
Haridasan
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
