IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 15068 of 2009(C) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. WILSON V.P., VELASSERY HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 2. V.P.ANTONY, VELASSERY HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 3. JOSY A.V., ANTHIKKAD HOUSE,MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 4. GOPI K.K.KARUVELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 5. LAWERNCE N.V., NADAVILE VEETIL, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 6. AMMINI, KUNNELKKAD, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 7. RAMANI, W/O.RAPHEL, KODUVELIPARAMBIL, UDYOGAMANGAL POST. 8. YESUDAS, KOCHERIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. 9. JAMAL, MEALTH HOUSE, ELOOR EAST, UDYOGAMANDAL POST. BY ADVS. DR.VINCENT PANIKULANGARA, MR.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 040. 2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, VALLARPADAM ICTT PROJECT, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER M.P.SREEKRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.15068 of 2009-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioners had surrendered lands for the purpose of Vallarpadam Project, following a judgment issued by this Court in a bunch of matters. As of now, their claim is that they are not appropriately rehabilitated and necessary measures have not been taken to provide them sufficient relief and succour. 2.The second respondent has filed a statement. Paragraph 2 of the said statement reads as follows: “The Government have no objection in principle in giving the same benefits ordered as per G.O.(MS).62/08/RD dated 19.03.2008 and G.O.(MS).163/08/RD dated 26.05.2008 and the benefits ordered by this WPC15068/09 -: 2 :- Hon'ble Court in judgment dated 20.06.2008 and 02.07.2008 in W.P(C).4834/07 and connected cases. But the problem faced by the Government for extending the said benefits to the petitioners is that non- availability of land faced in the State. Hence in all cases except in the cases of an award under the land acquisition act is passed Government have decided to extend the following benefits by virtue of G.O (MS).416/08/RD dated 06.12.2008:- 1. Land @ 4 cents or as ordered in the Government Order No.G.O.(MS). 62/08/RD dated 19.03.2008. 2. House rent and shifting charges as ordered in G.O.(MS).163/08/RD dated 26.05.2008. 3. Instead of additional land allowed in common judgment dated 20.06.2008 value of additional land i.e., half or one and half cents as the case may be. 4. Special rehabilitation allowance equal to the value of half cent of land at the rate fixed DLPC for their lands allowed in the judgment dated 20.06.2008.” WPC15068/09 -: 3 :- A Government Order dated 6.12.2008 has also been placed on record as Ext.R3(a). That Government Order has been issued taking into consideration the requirement for revision of rehabilitation project following the directions of this Court. In terms of the contents of Ext.R3(a), the respondents are also prepared to release the benefits to the petitioners. The relevant portion in paragraph 3 of the statement filed by the second respondent is apposite in this context: “The amounts covered under the rehabilitation package as afore-stated is kept ready in the office of the third respondent by way of cheques from 05.01.2009 and registered notices were issued to the petitioners dated 17.03.2009 for accepting the same. Apart from the said fact by letter dated 18.05.2009 the District Collector has intimated the petitioners that Government have allotted four cents of land near Kothad Bridge at Kadamakkudy village to the petitioners and request to accept the same.” WPC15068/09 -: 4 :- In view of the aforesaid, all that is required is now for the petitioners to seek the benefits of rehabilitation project with liberty to place any individual cases for further consideration, if needed. But, that will not in any manner, pave way for any fresh grievance because, any further rehabilitation would essentially be within the power of the State to grant such reliefs over and above the general provisions made as per Ext.R3 (a). The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2811