IMPORTANT POINT
Section 108 of Act 30 of 2013 gives an option to the affected families to avail better compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement.

JUDGMENT :

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 30 of 2013”) was enacted by the Parliament to ensure a humane, participative, informed and transparent process for land acquisition when the mighty state exercises its powers under eminent domain for furthering infrastructural development and urbanisation. An examination of the various provisions of the Act would reveal that much emphasis has been given to ensure that least disturbance is caused to the owners of the land affected by such acquisition and to other affected families and they are provided a just and fair compensation. The legislature also intended that there should be sufficient measures to provide rehabilitation and resettlement to the affected families. The Parliament wanted to ensure that the cumulative outcome of compulsory acquisition should be that affected persons become partners in development leading to an improvement in their social and economic status post acquisition.

2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in this Writ petition concerns one such acquisition made under Act 30 of 2013. Her grievance is that the respondents acquired the shop room where she was conducting business of bag manufacture for over a decade but she was deprived of the compensation to which she was legally entitled.

3. To appreciate the exact grievance of the petitioner, the facts need to be recapitulated in some detail.

4. The property comprised in Sy No. 208/4 and 209/7 of Vazhakkala Village was required for the purpose of expansion of Kochi Metro Rail from Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium to Vazhakkala. The husband of the petitioner had commenced a bag manufacturing unit, “Spinz Bag Works” in a shop room, taken on lease and having an area of 300 square feet and bearing building No.32/1243 of the Thrikkakkara Municipality. The petitioner states that she used to manage the business while her husband looked after the marketing and sales. She states that the bag manufacturing unit was the primary and only source of income for the family consisting of the husband and wife, their two daughters and aged parents of her husband. Three migrant labourers were also provided with employment in the said establishment. To substantiate the fact that the unit was commenced in the year 2004 and that it is having a license from the local authority even on the date of filing of the Writ petition, the petitioner relies on Exhibit P 1 license deed as well as Exhibit P2 receipt for payment of licence fee. While so, the husband of the petitioner secured a job as a class IV employee as a sweeper with the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Immediately thereafter the license was transferred in the name of the petitioner herein which fact is evident from Exhibit P3. The petitioner received notice of acquisition under Section 11 (1) of Act 30 of 2013 from the office of the 2nd respondent. Later she realised that she was not included in Exhibit P4 package issued by the respondent as one of the persons who are entitled to compensation as an affected person. Being aggrieved the petitioner is stated to have preferred Exhibit P5 before the second respondent. However without even affording her an opportunity of being heard her request was rejected by Exhibit P6 order. In Exhibit P6 it is stated by the respondent that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as an affected person as her primary source of livelihood does not stand affected by the acquisition of the land as her husband has acquired the employment. The petitioner states that the order passed by the respondent is arbitrary, illegal and clearly against the provisions of Act 30 of 2013. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or appropr