Point of law: Whenever a fundamental right is violated, and damages suffered, a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not hesitate to order payment of adequate compensation. Every right which is integral to constitutional rights to dignity, life, personal liberty and freedom, as indeed right to privacy is, must itself be regarded as a fundamental right”.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

This appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala and its officials challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30th March, 2015 in W.P.(C) No. 16646 of 2003, whereby the State of Kerala was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-to the respondent/writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition, which appears to be 9th July, 2003. However, the State was given the liberty to recover the said amount from the officers who are responsible for the illegal demolition. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is filed.

2. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in the writ petition was that she is the owner in possession of 1.90 acres of property situated in Survey No. 397 of Parathodu Village, Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District by virtue of settled deed No 334/1969 of Devikulam Sub Registry, which in turn was an assignment granted by the Government in favour of the predecessor in interest of the property. According to the writ petitioner, the said property is situated in a colony by name Kallar Pattom Colony and the block number assigned to the property so allotted is 396.

3. The case projected by the respondent/writ petitioner was that she has constructed 3 buildings on the southern side of the property, out of which 2 of them are old tiled buildings and one is a concrete building. The writ petitioner along with her family members are residing in the upper portion of the concrete buildings. Other buildings in the ground floor of the RCC building are in the possession of the tenants. While so, appellants 2 to 4 namely the Executive Engineer, PWD (Roads), Nedumkandam, the Assistant Engineer, PWD (Roads), Nedumkandam, the Assistant Engineer, PWD (Roads), Nedumkandam respectively, commenced widening of works of a road namely Kallar-Ramakkalmedu Road at Thookkupalam junction, where the writ petitioner's property abuts the road. For widening activities, a contract was awarded, by appellants 2 to 4, and with the assistance of the Contractor buildings of several persons were demolished using JCB, on the ground that such buildings are situated in the poramboke.

4. When the writ petitioner received information from reliable sources that appellants are proposing to demolish her building, she approached this Court basically contending that no portion of her buildings are encroaching into the PWD road or there is any poramboke in the landed property belonging to her. It was also the contention of the writ petitioner that no notice has been issued for fixation of any portion of her property for the purpose of widening of the road and no survey has been done at the instance of the PWD or any other authority in order to identify as to whether any portion of the Government property is in the possession of the writ petitioner.

5. The paramount contention advanced was that the appellants, who are discharging public duties, are not empowered to take a decision for demolition of the property belonging to the writ petitioner otherwise than in accordance with law. Anyhow, the appellants have started demolition of the buildings of the writ petitioner and it was thereupon, that the writ petitioner had approached this Court seeking a direction to the appellants not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the residential building by the writ petitioner. At the time of filing of the writ petition, it was clearly averred by the writ petitioner that the two pillars of one of the buildings had already been pulled down and thereupon, she sought for stay of demolition of the rest of the buildings.

6. The learned single Judge had issued an interim direction on 29.05.2003 against the appellants not to demolish the building any further for a period of one week. According to the writ petitioner, the order was communicated to the Nedumkandam