JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P5 order issued by the 4th respondent – Special Tahsildar, declining him Resettlement and Rehabilitation benefits under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('Fair Compensation Act' for short), saying that even though his buildings have been acquired, it has not denied him livelihood but has only reduced his income.

2. Shri.Babu Cherukara, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the facts recorded in Ext.P5 is contrary to truth, which is, in fact, clear from Ext.P9 proceedings of the District Collector; and that in the buildings that have been acquired, his client was running a business, which has now been forced to be closed down. He submitted that, therefore, even though his client may have been running another business in some other building, it was not justified for the Authorities to have denied him the eligible benefits towards Rehabilitation and Resettlement, since he is statutorily entitled to the same under the provisions of the 'Fair Compensation Act'. He thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed and the