VIJAYAN Vs. CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are children of one late P.K.Ammini.According to them,respondents had demolished a hut bearing House No.228 of Ward XX of the Changanassery Municipality where their mother along with them were residing from 1964 onwards.The said hut was located in Government Poramboke in Sy.No.21/33 C of Changanassery Village,It is also stated that for reconstruction of the hut.Municipality had granted a loan of Rs.5,000 under the Scheme of Home Upgradation as can be seen from Ext.P5.Exts.P1 and P2 are the tax receipts.Ext.P3 is the ration card.Ext.P4 is the assessment of Municipality.All these documents show that the Municipality was aware that they are living in that hut.They applied for issuing patta.By Ext.P6 shows that it is a government land.Appellants 'mother died on 21 -9 -1997.When appellants 1 and 2 were married,they starting residing at Madappally and they have given it to the 3rd appellant ( Ajitha -youngest daughter ).When the 3rd appellant went for delivery,hut was demolished on 6 -11 -1997 without notice or without any compensation.Ajitha became homeless.According to the Municipality,they received a complaint stating that after the death of Ammini the appellants who were residing elsewhere had attempted to rent out the hut to somebodyelse.But,no date is mentioned in the complaint.It is stated that the Municipal Council considered the complaint on 2 -10 -1997 and resolved to remove the unauthorisedly constructed but which is causing obstruction to the smooth flow of traffic.Since nobody was residing in the hut,notice was pasted in the conspicuous part of the hut and published in the Municipal Notice Board and demolition was effected.

(2.) COUNTER affidavit shows that the Municipal Council considered the complaint on 24 -10 -1997 and hut was demolished on 6 -11 -1997(within a period of 12 days ).Ammini and children were residing in House No.228 of Ward No.XX of Changanassery Municipality is not disputed at all.The demolition of the same was also not disputed.The case of the Municipality is that the hut is situated Government Puramboku land and such road puramboku land vest with Municipality from 1993.Therefore,they have got a right to remove encroachment even without notice.But the petitioners were living in 1964 onwards.In fact the Municipality had given loan to the tune of Rs.5,000 under the Home Upgradation Scheme.According to the appellants,they are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000.The learned Judge held as follows: - "Since the third and fourth respondents are taking the stand that due to the obstruction to the traffic caused on account of the location of the said hut the said encroachment is liable to be evicted,the relief of granting permission to put up the hut in the place where demolished hut.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY ,the hut was demolished without paying any compensation.Hut was constructed in 1960,the Municipality numbered the same and it had given loan for reconstruction.Therefore,even if the Municipality had power to remove the same,it has to pay compensation,especially in the facts and circumstances of the case."Right to live "is a fundamental right.When the dwelling place is demolished,at least appellants are entitled to damages.