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 4th respondent – Special Tahsildar be directed to reconsider the matter and afford his client all eligible benefits under Schedules I, II and III of the 'Fair Compensation Act', without any further delay.

3. In response, the learned Government Pleader – Smt.M.Anima, submitted that 4th respondent has acted without error in having issued Ext.P5 order because it was found that petitioner had only let out the buildings which had been acquired. She submitted that, therefore, though his rental income may have been reduced, his livelihood has not been impaired because, admittedly, he has other buildings given on rent, as also one in which he is running a business. She submitted that, therefore, Ext.P5 is irreproachable and prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. Sri.Brijesh Mohan – learned counsel appearing on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Metro Rail Limited (KMRL), submitted that though his client has no role to play in the assessment of the benefits eligible to a person whose land has been acquired, a counter affidavit has been filed by his client, wherein, it has been explained that when the petitioner was denied benefits under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement package (R&R package), he had approached the Grievance Redressal Cell, which granted an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- towards shifting and other expenses. He then added that petitioner has filed Ext.P8 appeal, which led to Ext.P9 order of the 2nd respondent reiterating that neither has he lost his business, nor as he facing a complete loss of livelihood. He thus argued that the claim of the petitioner for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is without any basis.

5. I have examined the afore rival submissions and have also gone through the materials on record, particularly Exts.P5 and P9.

6. As rightly stated by Sri.Brijesh Mohan, Ext.P9 is an order issued by the District Collector in which it has been found that the acquired building housed a “Front Office” and graphic designing section of the petitioner's business. It then says that, on account of such Front Office being acquired, the business cannot be seen to have been completely lost because the petitioner has rented out other shops in the back of the acquired land, in which he is also operating his own business. The order thus says that the petitioner's sole means of livelihood has not been taken away on account of the acquisition and therefore, that he is not entitled to the R&R package, thus granting him an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- towards shifting charges and subsistence allowance.

7. However, when one reads Ext.P5, same goes on the premise that the buildings acquired were, in fact, let out by the petitioner and that only the rental income has been reduced. It then says that petitioner has other buildings which have been