MANOJ KUMAR Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is conducting an auto rickshaw workshop on the banks of the T.S.Canal, Kollam and in puramboke land. The Kallupalam bridge lying across the TS Canal connects the Chinnakada market on the east with the Chamakkada Market on the western side of Kollam City. A much vaunted project of immense significance is the establishment of a National Water Waste extending from Kovalam in the South of Kerala to Bakel in the North. The vessels are expected to glide through the TS canal when the project is completed. In order to enable the vessels to pass through the old Kallupalam Bridge has to be demolished and in its place a wider and taller bridge has to be constructed . The work has commenced and the construction is to be completed by March, 2021. When piling works commenced, it was found that the Garage of the petitioner which lies in the red zone and in the line of the approach road. The Executive Engineer issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to remove the encroachment invoking the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. On receipt of notice, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No. 7713 of 2020 and by Ext.P6 judgment, this Court directed the District Collector to consider his representation and pass appropriate orders. The District Collector taking note of the fact that the garage was situated in the red zone of the alignment map and an impediment in proceeding with the construction rejected his request. The above order is under challenge.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent seriously controverting the contentions advanced by the petitioner. It is contended that the garage falls in the puramboke land of T.S.Canal and hinders the construction of the new bridge. It is further stated that the site where the garage is put up, is the place earmarked for deep pile foundation works. Unless the garage is removed in an expeditious manner, the entire project would be delayed.

(3.) Sri.C.Rajendran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the garage is situated beyond the retaining wall of the canal. Relying on certain photographs, it is contended that removal of the garage of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of building the new bridge. He would also contend that the people who are living on either sides of the canal were rehabilitated and the same treatment will have to be meted out to the petitioner as well.