Allowed

Vijayan v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission&Ors

Kerala HC27 Jul 2015WP(C)/111/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Kerala State Human Rights Commission's order directing him to pay compensation for drowning death allegedly caused by a pond he constructed. Court observed that since Revenue Divisional Officer had sanctioned the pond digging, Commission acting beyond powers in imposing damages. Writ petition allowed.

What did the court decide?

Order directing petitioner to pay One Lakh to the respondent vacated. No costs awarded.

Vijayan Vs Kerala State Human Rights Commission&Ors — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2015/5TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 111 of 2009 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

--------------

¶8

VIJAYAN, BINDU BHAVAN,

¶9

KARAZHMA, VALLIKUNNAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

SRI.R.REJI

SRI.B.BIPIN.

RESPONDENT(S):

------------

1. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶17

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

3. THE SECRETARY, BHARANIKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶19

4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR.

¶20

5. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AMBANADU VEEDU, BHARANIKKAVU P.O., KAYAMKULAM VIA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶21

R1 BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN

¶22

R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.V.CHARLES R5 BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

rvs.

¶25

WP(C).No. 111 of 2009 (L)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶28

------------------------

¶29

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO.60/1996 ON THE FILED OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KAYAMKULAM IS DATED 26/02/1999.

¶30

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN HRMP NO.4037/2002 DATED 21/08/2008 BY THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶32

-----------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

K. Vinod Chandran, J ------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.111 of 2009-L

¶38

¶39

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2015

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P12 order

¶42

passed by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission [for brevity “the Commission”]. The contention raised before the Commission by the 5^th respondent is that the petitioner had constructed a fish farm in the paddy field of the petitioner and so filled up the field with water. The 5^th respondent's son is said to have gone to the pond along with his two friends for taking bath and had drowned. The 5^th respondent alleges that the pond that was dug in the field, without consent.

¶43

The petitioner claims that the Revenue Divisional

¶44

Officer [for brevity “RDO”] had sanctioned the digging up of a pond and for removal of earth. The report of the RDO also shows such permission granted to the petitioner. However, there was a later proceeding initiated by the Village Officer against the petitioner for illegal removal of sand, which was resisted by the petitioner in a suit, numbered as O.S.No.60 of 1996, filed before the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam; the judgment of which is

¶45

WP(C).No.111 of 2009

¶46

¶47

produced at Exhibit P1. There was an injunction against the defendants, who are all Revenue officials.

¶48

In any event, the Commission has gone on the

¶49

premise that the writ petitioner had illegally dug a pond. That may not be correct, going by the sanction granted by the RDO. Further, the specific averment of the petitioner is that, the son of the 5^th respondent along with his friends went to the pond and the said boy drowned in the pond. In such circumstance, it is a moot question whether any damages can be mulcted on the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the Commission acted beyond its powers, insofar as mulcting damages on the petitioner. The order at Exhibit P2, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rupees One Lakh to the 5^th respondent, would stand vacated.

¶50

Writ petition allowed. No costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶53

vku/-

¶54

[ true copy ]

Vijayan v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission&Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission&Ors

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujina O. Vs State of Kerala

Jalaja Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Roopam Constructions Vs M/S. Hindustan Prefab Ltd.

Nadira K.A Vs the Agricultural Officer

Basheer Kutty Vs State of Kerala & 4 Others.

Praveen.R. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others