IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ASHOK BHUSHAN & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ.
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM – Appellant
Versus
BIJU RAMESH – Respondent
W.A. Nos. 2745, 2767, 2768 of 2015 & W.A. No. 57 of 2016
Decided On : 05-04-2016
Kerala Land Conservancy Act 1957 - Section. 3( 1) - Irrigation and drainage canals - Disaster - Definition of - Property of Government - Powers and functions of District Authority in the event of any threatening disaster situation or disaster - Power of requisition of resources, provisions, vehicles, etc., for rescue operations, etc -When can requisite - When power is to be exercised by the authorities -Whether plan for disaster management is to be prepared and should include the measures for prevention of danger or threat of any disaster - Held, Irrigation and drainage canals are to be treated as vested in the State within the meaning of Section 3(1) - Section 65 does not indicate that the said power is to be exercised by the authorities only when actual disaster has happened - In a case, long term plans have been made for prevention of danger or threat of any disaster, the power under Section 34 to implement such plans can in no manner be denied to the Authority - Power under Section 34 can be exercised both in response to threatening disaster situation or actual disaster - There is no lack of jurisdiction in District authorities to direct for demolition of structures in exercise of power under Section 34(k) - The DDMA without drawing any proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 can very well direct an occupier of Government land to vacate and remove his construction in the process of planning or managing, conducting or implementing measures for prevention of danger or threat of any disaster - Disaster Management Act 2005 - Section 34, 34(k) and 65
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. These Writ Appeals raise an important issue pertaining to the extent of power which can be exercised by the District Disaster Management Authority (for short, “the DDMA”) in reference to a disaster management, i.e., Whether in exercise of the power under Section 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2005 Act”), the District Management Authority can direct for demolition of the construction belonging to a private individual standing on an underground canal so as to carry out renovation and repair works of the said canal which became imminent due to the fact that the structure of the canal has outlived its life and would have led to a disaster within the meaning of the 2005 Act?
2. Writ Appeal Nos. 2745, 2767 and 2768 of 2015 have been filed against the common judgment dated 23.09.2015 rendered by the learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions filed by respondent No.1 in the above appeals. Writ Appeal No.57 of 2016 has been filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.26246 of 2015 in so far as the learned Single Judge by the same judgment has refused to grant relief to the Writ Petitioner therein.
3. All the Writ Appeals raising common questions of facts and law have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. WA No. 2745 of 2015 arising out of W.P. (C) No.26377 of 2015 is being treated as leading writ appeal and reference of facts and pleadings in the above case shall suffice for deciding all the writ appeals.
4. Facts of each Writ Appeal needs to be noted separately.
W.A. No. 2745/2015
5. More than a Century ago, in the year 1901, the Maharaja of Travancore (now known as Thiruvananthapuram) for the purpose of drainage, constructed a Canal, viz., Thekkinikara Canal which starts from Karimadam flood balancing tank in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, flows through a covered drain northwards into the Attakulangara school premises from where it flows westwards through an underground arch conduit through the southern portion of the Fort premises, exits at the Vazhappally Junction and further flows down as an open canal to Parvathi Puthanar. The Canal was reconstructed and repaired in the year 1936. After the formation of the State of Travancore-Cochin, the then Government issued an order dated 02.02.1950 regarding allocation of property between the State and Maharaja of Travancore. Various Properties as detailed in Government Order dated 02.02.1950 were retained by the Maharaja of Travancore. One of the survey numbers which was retained was Sy.No.560/ 364 of Vanchiyoor Village. On 21.12.1972, mother of the petitioner, Smt.B.Indira Devi, obtained a deed of sale executed by the Power of Attorney of the Maharaja of Travancore for an area of 75 cents comprised in Sy.No.560/364 along with certain buildings existing thereon. By settlement deed dated 02.12.2010 Smt.Indira Devi made a settlement of 19.5 cents in Sy.No.560/364-3 in favour of the petitioner along with buildings. Petitioner and his mother renovated and repaired the buildings existed in Sy.No.560/364. Petitioner started paying land tax and ownership of the building was also transferred in the name of the petitioner.
6. The 2005 Act was enacted by the Parliament for prevention and mitigation of effects of disasters and for undertaking a holistic, co-ordinated and prompt response to any disaster situation and to provide requisite institutional mechanisms for drawing up and monitoring the implementation of the disaster management plans. Under the 2005 Act the State Government issued State Disaster Management Policy, dated 19.06.2010 under which “District Management Plan, Thiruvananthapuram-2014” was prepared. The city of Thiruvananthapuram on account of incessant rains had been witnessing floods, water logs, disruption of traffic and an operation, viz., Operation Anantha” was initiated for mitigatin
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.