IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P. CHALY, JJ.
Kallara Grama Panchayath – Petitioner
Versus
Kerala Human Rights Commission – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 7605 of 2021
Decided On : 24-03-2021
Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993- Section 36(2)- Kerala Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 - clause 17(d) - Petitioner Panchayat is not liable to pay any compensation or to construct retaining wall to the 3rd respondent as directed
Finding of the Court:
Act intends to protect any kind of human rights violations, which in our considered opinion, includes any act done by any authority interfering with the property enjoyed by its owner protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. This is a case where possession of the property of the 3rd respondent was taken; however, compensation was not paid for several years. It was under the said circumstances the third respondent has approached the Human Rights Commission, giving due consideration to the material on record in our view, the Human Rights Commission has identified that the said act of Panchayat is a violation of human rights. Moreover, definition of ‘human rights’ under Section 2(d) shows that it is in relation to the life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by courts of law - third respondent, who had voluntarily surrendered her property thinking that suitable compensation would be paid, had to wait for nearly 26 years to receive appropriate compensation, which the appellant has failed to do.
Result: Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. MANIKUMAR, J.
1. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext. P5 order, HRMP No. 8402/2014 dated 11.12.2017 and also seeking for a direction to declare that the complaint preferred by the 3rd respondent is barred by limitation as per Section 36(2) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (‘Act 1993’ for short) and clause 17(d) of the Kerala Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 2001 (‘Regulations 2001’ for short) and that the petitioner Panchayat is not liable to pay any compensation or to construct retaining wall to the 3rd respondent as directed in Ext. P5.
2. Materials on record discloses that respondent No. 3 has submitted Ext.P1 application before the Kerala State Human Rights Commission and the same reads thus:
From
Jayasree S.
Shyni Nivas,
Kodithookkiya Kunnu P.O.
Kallara
Sir,
I am residing at Shyni Nivas, K.T Kunnu, Kallara Village, Nedumangad Taluk, Thiruvananathapuram District. I am a widow and mother of two daughters. For a project of KWA in 1996, a road was constructed starting from my property. For surrendering my property for road construction, Kallara Panchayat told me to pay a decent amount. And due to the promise, they made me to sign in a white paper for the purpose of written consent. Even after many years there has not been any final decision regarding the fund as promised. Complaint was given to many authorities but it was of no use. In 2009 I submitted a complaint to the office of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. After that I gave a complaint to the water authority, then a complaint was given to Kallara Grama Panchayath (RT), then to the District Collector. Finally during the expansion of the PWD Road, for rendering justice I preferred a complaint to the Assistant Executive Engineer. All the complaints that I have preferred and the responses have been attached here. I am a widow and I have not been given justice from anywhere till now. The initial plan was to construct the road by taking 2.5 meters from either side and thereby to construct a 5 meter width by the water authority. My property starts from the main road. The owner of the property which is situated on the opposite side of my property had misused my property and even after constant objection from my side, my property was encroached without my permission and using JCBs they laid pipe on my land. My house is almost 10 feet above the road. After each rain, due to the removal of earth by the PWD and KWA, my property is in a dangerous position. After each rain landslides are happening. I preferred many complaints against different authorities. Water Authority has promised to rectify the damage if they get a report from the Panchayat. I am entitled for compensation for the property surrendered by me and also entitled to get back the property encroached by them on the basis of the old sketch and plan. Immediate steps may be taken to protect my house and property. I humbly request to take urgent steps to protect my interest in this regard.
Faithfully,
Jayasree S.
Place: Kodithookkiya Kunnu
Date: 05.09.2014
3. After receiving the notice on 01.10.2014 from the office of the Kerala Human Rights Commission, the petitioner has sent a reply dated 21.10.2014, which reads thus:
Secretary,
Kallara Grama Panchayat.
To,
Secretary,
Human Rights Commission
Sir,
Sub: Representation submitted by Smt. Jayasree demanding price of the property, which was surrendered to the Kerala Water Authority by the Kallara Grama panchayat - reply report.
Reg: Ref: Letter No. HRMP/14/TVM/HRC dated 1.10.2014 from your office.
Attention invited to the reference. Enquiry conducted regarding the above subject reveals that the dispute is with regard to the mud road constructed for access to the water tank erected to the Kerala Water Authority in KT Kunnu Ward of Kallara Grama Panchayat, which lies from Varikkaplamoodu Junction to KT Kunnu PWD road. Now the road is having a width of 4.7 meter to 4.5 meters and having around 150 me
Amarjit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others
Beaulane Properties Ltd. vs. Palmer
City Montessori School vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam and Another vs. Jaswant Singh
Chameli Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. T.T. Murali Babu
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke and Chemicals Ltd. and Others
Devinder Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Another
Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others (2011) 9 SCC 354
Fairweather vs. St Marylebone Property Co. (1962) 2 WLR 1020 : (1962) 2 All ER 288
Govt. of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai
Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Others vs. Union of India and Others
Lachhman Dass vs. Jagat Ram and Others
Lipton India Ltd. vs. Union of India
Mahender Pal and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others
N. Padmamma and Others vs. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and Others
Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and Others
New Reviera Coop Housing Society and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others
Prabin Ram Phukan vs. State of Assam
P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy and Others vs. Revamma and Others
State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and Others
State of Haryana vs. Mukesh Kumar and Others
State of Maharastra vs. Digambar
State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaismal
State of Rajasthan vs. D.R. Laxmi
State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. M.I.D.C. and Others
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.