Disposed

K.v.Achuthan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Nov 2021WP(C)/10720/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation from respondents for requisitioning his auditorium for a covid treatment center. Court declined to decide merits, directing the District Collector to consider the grievance after hearing parties within one month.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation before 4th Respondent; 4th Respondent directed to consider grievance, give notice to 5th Respondent, and decide within one month.

K.v.Achuthan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10720 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.V.ACHUTHAN PROPRIETOR OF A V MANDIR KALLYANA MANDAPAM AND AUDITORIUM, NOORNAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 504.

¶8

BY ADVS. P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) SRI.E.S.FIROS SMT.AMRUTHA K.P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM P.O., PIN-695 001.

¶11

2 KERALA STATE DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA GOVERNMENT, OBSERVATORY HILLS, VIKAS BAHVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3 ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON - DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶13

4 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶14

5 PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NOORANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 504.

¶15

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, PALAMEL VILLAGE OFFICE, NOORANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 504.

¶16

7 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NOORANAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 504.

BY ADVS.

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

BRIJESH MOHAN R.RAJPRADEEP NANDU S KUMAR

¶21

SMT.RASHMI K.M, SENIOR GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

¶24

¶25

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶26

W.P.(C)No.10720 of 2021

¶27

Dated this the 17^th day of November 2021

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The above writ petition is filed with

¶30

following prayers:

¶31

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to pay adequate compensation to the petitioner under Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act, for requisitioning his auditorium (Building numbers 19/532, 19/534 and 19/540 in Palamel Grama Panchayat) for six months, within a specific time frame.

¶32

b) Issue such other appropriate writ, direction or order as deemed fit and proper by this Honourable Court in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶33

2. Petitioner is the owner of an

¶34

auditorium named “AV Mandir Kallyana Mandapam

¶35

and Auditorium”. It is the case of the

¶36

petitioner that the auditorium of the petitioner was taken over by the 3^rd respondent for conducting Covid First Line Treatment Centre(CFLTC) under Sections 65, 34 and 26(2)

¶37

¶38

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

¶39

of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 on 28.07.2020. Ext.P2 is the order passed by the District Collector, Alappuzha. According to the petitioner, the auditorium was used for a period of six months and returned the same on 28.12.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that, as per Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the respondents are legally bound to pay rent and compensation to the owner of the property. However, the respondents have not even fixed the rent and compensation payable to the petitioner till date. Ext.P4 is the letter send by the 5^th respondent in which it is stated that, once the rent is fixed by the 7^th respondent, the amount due to the petitioner will be paid. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶40

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

¶42

¶43

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel for the 5^th respondent Panchayat submitted that, subsequent to Ext.P5, there is an instruction from the District Collector not to give any payment, if the auditorium is not used even though it is taken over. In such circumstances, the counsel submitted that, in the light of such an instruction, the Panchayat is not in a position to proceed further. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the 4^th respondent took such a stand because of specific reasons.

¶44

5. In such circumstances, I don't want to make any observation about the merit of the case. It is an admitted fact that the auditorium of the petitioner was taken over as

¶45

per Ext.P2 and the receipt of acceptance is Ext.P3. It is also an admitted fact that, subsequently the auditorium was returned on

¶46

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

¶47

¶48

28.12.2020. Therefore, admittedly the

¶49

petitioner was not in possession of the auditorium during the above period. Whether any amount is to be paid for the same as per the Disaster Manangement Act is a matter to be decided by the 4^th respondent. I think the petitioner can approach the 4^th respondent with a representation narrating his grievance and

¶50

the 4^th respondent can be directed to consider the same after giving notice to the Panchayat also.

¶51

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶52

(i) The petitioner is free to file a representation before the 4^th respondent narrating his grievance within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

(ii) Once such a representation is received, the 4^th respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after

¶54

giving an opportunity of hearing to the

¶55

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

¶56

petitioner and the 5^th respondent Panchayat.

¶57

(iii) The above exercise should be

¶58

completed by the 4^th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date on which the

¶59

representation is received.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.10720/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10720/2021

¶66

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶67

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
	NO.9939983 ISSUED BY PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR BUILDING NO.19/532.
EXHIBIT P1 A	TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT NO.9939985 ISSUED BY PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR BUILDING NO.19/534.
EXHIBIT P1 B	TRUE COPY OF PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT NO.9939990 ISSUED BY PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR BUILDING NO.19/540.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.07.2020
	ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ALAPUZHA IN FILE NO.DMC5-5935/2020.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
	PALAMEL, COUNTER SIGNED BY PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PALAMEL DATED 28.07.2020.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.01.2021
	IN FILE C2-782/2021 ISSUED BY
	SECRETARY, PALAMEL GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶68

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

PA TO JUDGE

K.v.Achuthan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Achuthan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramky Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

K.M. Rafeeque Vs the Secretary

M/S Eminent Security Vs Govt.of India & Another

Rahmath Potachola Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Thankappan Vs Dist. Collector & Ors.

The Kerala Private Iti Managers Association Vs Director General of Training