High Court set aside Ext.P6 denying equal shares, holding that independent advocates sharing premises are distinct affected families entitled to Rs.50,000/- each under the 2013 Act and Government Order dated 29.12.2017.
Ext.P6 set aside; declaration that petitioners are eligible for compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- each.
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 MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 2408 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 ADV. V.S. SURESH KUMAR,AGED 62 YEARS SARADALAYAM, AMARAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 6951212 ADV. MOHANDAS. A., AGED 62 YEARS PANCHAJANYAM, PAZHAYAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695133BY ADVS.
S.KRISHNA
GOVIND R.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDARO/O SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ADDL. (LA) UNIT B BLOCK,
6TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043
3 ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043OTHER PRESENT:
GP - AJITH VISWANATHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No.2408 of 2024
2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
W.P (C) No.2408 of 2023
................................................................. Dated this the 20th day of March, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P6 and for a declaration that the petitioners are eligible for compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- each as per the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme. Petitioners are advocates having 35 years of practice. They are affected by the land acquisition proceedings whereby the advocate chambers taken on rent was demolished. By Ext.P3 the 3rd respondent granted compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to those advocates who chambers have been acquired. Pursuant to the same Rs.50,000/was granted to the 1st petitioner. On finding that the 2nd petitioner who was also carrying out independent practice in the said chamber was excluded from the purview of acquisition a specific representation was
preferred before the 2nd respondent. Pursuant to the same the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- was divided into Rs.25,000/each. Thereupon further representations were submitted by the petitioners stating that the whole purpose of granting compensation is to help the lawyers tide over the perils of immediate dislocation and consequential hardships in finding a new chamber and virtually starting
WP(C) No.2408 of 2024
3
their practice from square one. It is also pointed out in Ext.P4 representation that the clerks attached to such officers have been granted Rs.36,000/- each. The 2nd respondent without any application
of mind found that since the petitioners are using the same room for conducting their practice, the compensation amount has to be divided among the petitioners and thereby issued Ext.P6 reply in the said line. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners have approached this Court.
WP(C) No.2408 of 2024
4
be persons whose primary source of livelihood is adversely affected due to the acquisition proceedings initiated. By Ext.P3 those advocates whose chambers have been acquired are notified to receive one time amount of Rs.50,000/-. Section 28 of the Act 2013 deals with the parameters to be considered by the Collector in determination of award. Going by the said Section the Collector has to look into whether as a consequence of the acquisition of land the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business and the reasonable expense if any incidental to such change.
WP(C) No.2408 of 2024
5
“Each affected family of an artisan, small trader or self employed person or an affected family which owned non agricultural land or commercial, industrial or institutional structure in the affected area, and which has been involuntarily displaced from the affected area due to land acquisition, shall get one-time financial assistance of fifty thousand rupees.” (underline supplied)
Going by the said clause one time financial assistance of Rs.50,000/- is provided to each affected family. The respondents have no case that the petitioners are not affected and involuntarily displaced from the affected area due to land acquisition. Petitioners were functioning their office in the rented premises at the time of acquisition. Now Clause 8 of the Government order dated 29.12.2017 deals with the one time grant paid to affected family of self employed person who has been adversely affected by the land acquisition proceedings. So much so when there is a finding that the petitioners are affected by land acquisition proceedings, naturally the affected family of the petitioners are entitled for one time financial assistance of Rs.50,000/-. In view of the same the apportionment of Rs.50,000/- among the petitioners in equal share is against the scheme of the Act and the rehabilitation and resettlement package as per Government order dated 29.12.2017. On finding that petitioners are affected persons and persons interested whose primary source of livelihood has been adversely affected due to the acquisition they are entitled for Rs.50,000/- each as one time financial assistance. In view of the same
WP(C) No.2408 of 2024
6
the apportionment of the amount between the petitioners cannot be accepted. Therefore, Ext.P6 is set aside declaring that the petitioners herein are eligible for compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- each as per the rehabilitation and resettlement scheme.
With the abovesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE
cks
WP(C) No.2408 of 2024
7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2408/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT STUDY
REPORT BY THE INSTITUTION FOR RURAL
DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED
01.09.2019
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRAORDINARY
GAZETTE NO. 2836 DATED 18.11.2020
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF
COMPENSATION GRANTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE ADVOCATES
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2023
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2023
Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE
2NDRESPONDENTAGAINSTTHE
REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS
DATED 02.12.2023
3 issues framed by the court
Whether two advocates sharing a rented chamber separately entitled to Rs.50,000/- each or the amount to be apportioned equally.
Whether independent practitioners sharing premises qualify as distinct affected families for one-time financial assistance.
Whether the respondents acted without application of mind by denying separate eligibility to one petitioner.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
ADV. V.S. SURESH KUMAR
ADV. MOHANDAS. A.
STATE OF KERALA
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
ADMINISTRATOR AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA)
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court