LAIJU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P18 order and seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of the rehabilitation package or pay compensation to the tune of Rs.6,67,367.00 as was paid to similarly placed persons as evident from Exts.P11, P12 and P13.

(2.) The petitioner was running a bunk shop at Champakkara junction near the Vyttila - Petta road. The bunk was, in fact, started in the year 1970 by his father, late Sri. M.K. Sugunan. The income from the said bunk shop is the sole source of livelihood for the petitioner and his family. Ext.P1 statutory licence was also obtained by the father of the petitioner from the Cochin Corporation for running the bunk. The petitioner's father died on 9/1/2016. After the death of the petitioner's father, the Corporation of Cochin granted licence in the name of the petitioner, his two brothers and mother as per Ext.P2. The lease on land was renewed as per Ext.P3, and Ext.P4 is the electricity bills pertaining to the said bunk shop.

(3.) A proposal emerged for widening the road between Petta and Vyttila in connection with the implementation of the Kochi Metro Rail Project. The bunk shop was situated by the side of the Vyttila- Petta road abutting the same. When the proposal was conveyed to the petitioner by the respondent, he agreed to give vacant possession of the site to the Government without any objection for the implementation of the Kochi Metro Rail Project, subject to his right to get due compensation and other benefits under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2013'). The petitioner would submit that the respondents have paid a compensation of Rs.6,36,000.00 to the persons who have lost their business due to the acquisition process, and the petitioner is also entitled to get the same benefit. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted an application before respondents 1 and 3, and in response to Ext.P5 hearing notice, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 certificate issued by the Corporation of Cochin stating that the bunk was being run by the legal representatives of late M.K.Sugunan. The 3 rd respondent forwarded Ext.P7 report to the 1st respondent. While so, an attempt was made to evict the petitioner from the property and also tried to demolish the bunk. Thereupon, the petitioner approached this Court, filing W.P.(C)No.6256/2018 against the illegal attempt of eviction, and the said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P8 judgment directing the 2nd respondent therein to consider the request made by the petitioner for compensation. Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent, and the petitioner handed over Ext.P10 notification containing the package for compensation. The petitioner also produced Ext.P11, the details obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, which would reveal that one Sri. M.T.John was given a rehabilitation compensation of Rs.6,67,367.00 towards the demolition of his bunk. Ext.P12 is the order, and Ext.P13 is the communication issued by the Special Tahsildar in this regard. Despite the production of all these documents to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, he was granted only Rs.30,000.00 as per Ext.P14 order. On receipt of Ext.P14, another representation was filed by the petitioner as Ext.P15. But the claim was rejected, stating that he is entitled to get only Rs.30,000.00 as rehabilitation package. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court again filing WP(C) No.8260 of 2019, which was disposed of as per Ext.P17 judgment, wherein this Court has observed that since the petitioner was occupying in puramboke area owned by the Corporation with their permission and on the strength of the license issued, the petitioner cannot be construed as an encroacher and directed reconsideration of the matter. Despite the specific direction issued as per Ext.P17, the claim of the petitioner was rejected as per Ext.P18, stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the compensation payable to the tenants. It is in the said circumstance that the petitioner has approached this Court.