Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31579
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
K.N.SABU, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
WP(C)/27957/2019
ADVS.PRAVEEN.H.G.HARIHARAN
The government is obligated to implement rehabilitation packages as promised to evictees, ensuring compliance and addressing grievances effectively.
Headnote:
Rehabilitation - Writ Petition - Moolampilly Rehabilitation Package - Sec. 2 & 4 of the Land Acquisition Act - The court directed state authorities to address grievances of evictees regarding delayed rehabilitation benefits, emphasizing the responsibility of the government to implement assured packages faithfully.
Fact of the Case:
Residents had their properties acquired for a terminal project and were promised a rehabilitation package which included compensation, housing, and employment benefits, but contended these were not realized, especially concerning the quality of the allocated land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evictees were not properly compensated or provided adequate rehabilitation as per the package. It ordered officials to meet with representatives of the petitioners to resolve these grievances within a specified timeframe.
Issues: Whether the respondents failed to implement the Moolampilly Rehabilitation Package as promised to evictees, and the appropriate remedy for such non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: Government must honor its commitments in rehabilitation packages; failure to do so gives rise to a legal duty to rectify deficiencies promptly.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed with a directive to state authorities to resolve the petitioners' grievances within four months.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
1. “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to forthwith implement and extend the benefits of the Moolampilly Rehabilitation Package without any further delay.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 4th respondent to take up Exhibit P49 representation and pass orders on the same without any further delay.
3. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to monitor the consideration of Exhibit P49 by the 4th respondent and ensure that proper action is taken without any delay.
4. To pass such other order or relief as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”
2. The short facts are like this : The petitioners are residents of Elamakkara and their properties were acquired in connection with the construction of the rail connectivity for the Vallarpadom Container Terminal during the year 2008. They were offered a rehabilitation package and were assured the following :
a. That all evictees will be granted compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent for acquired land;
b. All evictees will be paid a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- per month till such time they are allotted a suitable land for residence as a part of the rehabilitation package;
c. At least one member of each family will be given employment at the Vallarpadom Project in accordance with their qualifications;
d. All evictees will be allotted with a land having an extent of 4 cents each which has access to basic facilities like water, electricity, roads etc;
e. That the evictees will be allotted a sum of Rs.75,000/- for each plot for the purpose of piling;
f. That the compensation amount granted pursuant to the acquisition proceedings will be exempt from TDS deductions under the Income Tax Act.”
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not given the benefits as agreed in the package. The property offered to the petitioners is a water logged marshy land. The petitioners submitted that, the other assurance given to them are also not given. Therefore, the petitioners submitted that there may be direction to the authorities to extend all the benefits of Moolampilly rehabilitation package to the petitioners, without any further delay. There are other connected reliefs also.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated her contention in the writ petition. The counsel takes me through paragraph No.18 in the counter dated 8.1.2021. The counsel submitted that even as per the admission of the respondents, it is clear that only few constructions are made and there are damages to the constructions subsequently. That itself shows that the package is not implemented properly, is the contention.
6. The learned senior Government Pleader submitted that the package is already implemented in the year 2012. The Government Pleader submitted that even though the land was a water logged marshy land, it is already reclaimed and it is converted to a land, which is usable. The learned Government Pleader submitted that at this distance of time, nothing can be done in this case.
7. After hearing both sides, it is clear that, there is a grievance to the petitioners. Admittedly, they are the evictees and there was a rehabilitation package for the evictees. The grievance of the petitioners is that all the benefits were not given to the petitioners. The District Collector took a stand that the benefits were already given. These are matters to be considered by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioners takes me through paragraph No.18 of the counter affidavit dated 8.1.2021, which is extracted hereunder.
“All plots in Thuthiyoor rehabilitation sites were reclaimed land converted from water logged areas of low tide plains. The subsoil is silty clay and in some places sandy
