IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 37008 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. NOUSHAD ,AGED 42, S/O.ALIYAR KUNJU PUTHUPURACKAL MANNEL, AYIRAMTHENGU, ALUMPEEDIKA .P.O.,ALAPPAD. 2. SHAMSAD, S/O.LATE ABDUL MAJEED,AGED 35 BIJU MANZIL, AYIRAMTHENGU, ALUMPEEDIKA .P.O.,ALAPPAD. 3. BABU, S/O.MADHAVAN PRABHRAMAM,AYIRAMTHENGU,ALUMPEEDIKA .P.O.,ALAPPAD. 4. MRS. MANI, W/O.LATE SURENDRAN JETTY VADAKUTHIL, AYIRAMTHENGU,ALUMPEEDIKA .P.O.,ALAPPAD. BY ADV. SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE P.W.D.ROADS DIVISION KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. 3. ALAPPAD PANCHAYATH ALAPPAD, KARUNAGAPPALLY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY 4. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT LAND AND REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 37008 OF 2008 (E) ==================== Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners state that they lived in close proximity to the construction site of over bridge at Aazhikal-Ayiramthengu. It is stated that due to the impact of the piling and other related construction works, it has become impossible for the petitioners to continue to live where they were residing. It is stated that accepting the above situation, the 3rd respondent negotiated with the petitioners and promised to compensate them and also to meet the lease rent on relocating their residences. According to the petitioners, acting upon the said commitment, they have entered into lease agreements and have leased out houses where they are now residing. It is stated that neither the compensation nor even the lease rental payable have been reimbursed by the Government. Exts. P2 to P5 are the lease agreements which are stated to have been entered. 2. In this writ petition, what they pray is that the respondents should be directed to pay compensation for the damages caused to the buildings of the petitioners and also to reimburse the rental that they had paid for relocating the residence. In the meanwhile, they also say that the work should also be stopped. 3. Although the petitioners have not produced any document to WPC 37008/08 :2 : support their claim for payment of damages or for reimbursement of the rental, learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that the 2nd respondent has undertaken to reimburse the rental if the petitioners produce proper lease deeds. It is stated that the documents relied on are Exts. P2 to P5 and that these are not proper documents and therefore the petitioners cannot raise any claim based on those documents. It is stated that if and when proper documents are received, the 2nd respondent, as agreed by him, shall forward the same to the Government for sanction of necessary funds in this behalf. In so far as the claim of the petitioners for payment of compensation, it is stated that there has not been such agreement between the parties. 4. As far as the claim of the petitioners for compensation is concerned, it being a disputed issue between the parties, the petitioners will have to approach the appropriate forum if they want to pursue their claims in this behalf. 5. In so far as the claim for reimbursement of the rental paid by the petitioners for relocating the residential houses are concerned, now that Exts.P2 to P5 are rightly not acceptable to the respondents, I direct that if and when the petitioners produce proper rent deeds, the 2nd WPC 37008/08 :3 : respondent shall consider the claim of the petitioners as undertaken by him and do the needful in this matter, without any further delay. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp