IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WA.No. 2031 of 2009 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.38001/2007 Dated 09/06/2009 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ SAJAN.A.C, S/O.THANKAMMA, AYYAMKULATHU HOUSE, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2031 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. The appellant/petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, has preferred this appeal. 2. Claiming to be the evictee along with his mother in the year 1962-64 for the construction of Idukki Hydro Electric Project it was contended that the petitioner and his mother were promised assignment of one acre of land and in spite of the numerous representations including the one to the Human Rights Commission, the authorities are not considering the assignment and as such he is forced to approach this Court. 3. Considering the counter affidavit filed by the Government and noting the fact that the mother of the petitioner was already assigned 4 cents of land shortly after the eviction under the Rehabilitation Scheme and the said area of land is in full possession and ownership of the appellant, the learned Single Judge declined to give any relief. More over, it was found WA No.2031 of 2009 -:2:- that it is not as if the petitioner independently as has been projected, is entitled for any land as at the time of eviction for the construction of Idukki Hydro Electric Project, he was hardly 5 years of age and as such, the petitioner was not entitled in his individual capacity for any claim on rehabilitation even if there was any promise. Indisputably, the mother is not aggrieved by the alleged inaction as she was already assigned a land, but, it is only the petitioner/appellant, the son who was not even entitled for such assignment has come forward to claim the benefits, that too after almost 37 years of the eviction in the year 1962-64. Considering these aspects, in our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer of the appellant. We find no illegality or perversity on the same. Hence the appeal is rejected. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. A.K. Basheer, Judge. ttb