Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM
N. Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and requisition of premises (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments for compensation determination (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of statutory provisions regarding compensation (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. compensation determined by rent payable (Para 7) |
| 5. judgment ruling on compensation entitlement (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
1. The above writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P6 award passed by the Arbitrator under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2005’), being aggrieved by the determination of the quantum of compensation payable in connection with the building requisitioned for institutional quarantine/COVID containment, invoking Section 65 of the Act 2005.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The petitioner is the Proprietor of a lodging house having 25 rooms in Kayamkulam Municipality. The 3rd respondent, in his capacity as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, exercising the powers under Section 65 of the Act 2005, issued an order for the taking over of the above lodging house of the petitioner for institutional quarantine, by order dated 02.06.2020. Following the
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 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 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....
Emergency authorities are mandated to compensate for property used during crises, regardless of compliance with construction regulations, affirming property rights under constitutional law.
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 petitioner must be afforded a hearing before rent fixation for requisitioned property and can seek compensation under the Disaster Management Act.
Recovery of damage rent for unauthorized railway quarter retention permissible from retirement gratuity under Rule 15(2) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 as government dues; Payment of Gratu....
The assessment of damages for unauthorized property use persists despite prior communications, reaffirmed by policy provisions, with petitioners failing to establish rights for commercial utilization....
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 emphasized the finality of the petitioner's status as an unauthorized occupant and upheld the criteria for assessment of damages laid down by NDMC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
