IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
N.NAGARESH, J.
SR Educational & Charitable Trust - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 6653 of 2023
Decided on : 01-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compensation claims for property taken during covid-19 (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. respondents' arguments against compensation claims (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. district collector's reasoning on lack of compensation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's obligation on compensation for taken equipment (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. judgment remitting for reconsideration of claims (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
N.NAGARESH, J.
The petitioner, which is an educational agency running a Medical College and Dental College, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P23 and to direct the respondents to determine the compensation payable to the petitioner for taking over their Hospital, Hostel, the equipments and instruments, under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 and to disburse the compensation amounts forthwith.
2. The petitioner states that by Ext.P1 order dated 16.03.2020, the petitioner was directed to handover the petitioner's Medical College with all existing human and material resources to the DMO, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P1 was issued under Sections 26 , 30 and 34 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005. The Secretary to Cherunniyoor Grama Panchayat required the petitioner to handover keys of the rooms on the 6th floor and to provide three cleaning staff maintaining Covid protocol, as per Ext.P2. By Ext.P3, the petitioner was required to repair the lift. By Ext.P4, the DMO required the petitioner to handover the entire facility of the College. The petitioner co-operated.
3. No rent or compensation was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore computed the compensation/rent based on the Technical Circular dated 25.05.2021 issued by the PWD and submitted Ext.P18 representation dated 10.08.2021. Detailed calculation of compensation was attached. About Rs.46 Crores is due to the petitioner. Thereafter, the District Collector directed to close down the Covid First Line and Second Line Treatment Centres, as per Ext.P20 order dated 05.11.2021. Thereafter, the 4th respondent conducted fumigation in the Hospital and the Hospital was handed over to the petitioner as can be seen from Ext.P21 communication dated 12.11.2021. The 2nd respondent on 10.01.2023 has passed Ext.P23 order rejecting the claims of the petitioner and holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as the building constructed for the Medical College is unauthorised. Ext.P23 order is under challenge.
4. The 2nd respondent resisted the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that pursuant to the interim order dated 19.06.2023 of this Court, the Rent Committee meeting was held on 30.06.2023. A joint inspection was conducted. The Panchayat authorities reported that the Women's Hostel building of the Dental College was constructed in violation of CRZ Regulations. The Rent Committee fixed the rent for the portion of the building which was taken over for Covid response activities at Rs.1,06,19,881.44 as per Annexure R2(c). The 2nd respondent stated that all the equipments taken over by the respondents are in working condition. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief, urged the 2nd respondent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 6.
6. It is not disputed that the land, building and facilities of the petitioner were taken over by the respondents invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act. The dispute is regarding the eligibility of the petitioner to receive compensation. By Ext.P23 order, the District Collector has declined compensation to the petitioner.
7. As regards rent for the floor area and rent for rooms, the District Collector has concluded that as the portion of the building used by the respondents was unauthorised construction, rent for floor area and rooms cannot be sanctioned. As regards rent for medical equipments, the District Collector has stated that in spite of request, the petitioner has not come forward to take over the equipments. There is no provision f
AI
Emergency authorities are mandated to compensate for property used during crises, regardless of compliance with construction regulations, affirming property rights under constitutional law.
Compensation for requisitioned premises under the Disaster Management Act cannot be limited by Executive Orders, and must reflect actual rent for the entire duration of requisition.
The court allowed banquet owners to seek compensation under Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act for the requisition of their premises and directed expedited processing of compensation applicati....
The petitioner must be afforded a hearing before rent fixation for requisitioned property and can seek compensation under the Disaster Management Act.
The court highlighted the importance of allowing the petitioners to pursue the compensation dispute and ensuring their request for an arbitrator is not rejected based on limitation.
The court affirmed that under Section 66 of the Disaster Management Act, officers must determine compensation for requisitioned properties, irrespective of an application by property owners.
The Disaster Management Act, 2005 permits the government to permanently acquire land for disaster management purposes, ensuring compensation for affected property owners under the eminent domain prin....
The court dismissed the petition due to lack of substantiation for the violations claimed, affirming previous actions taken by the authorities.
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.