IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 8121 of 2011(M) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR,KAVANAL,DEVASREE,V.K.C.P.O., THEVAKKAL,ERNAKULAM-682030 2. PANKAJAKSHY AMMA, W/O.CHANDRAN NAIR, KAVANAL,DEVASREE,V.K.C.P.O.,THEVAKKAL ERNAKULAM-682030 BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI-110001 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,ERNAKULAM-682030 4. SPECIAL COLLECTOR, KOCHI REFINERIES LTD, VADAKKEKOTTA,TRIPUNITHURA-682301 5. M/S.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD KOCHI OIL REFINERIES LTD, AMBALAMUGHAL, KOCHI REPRESETNED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(PROJECTS) M/S.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD KOCHI OIL REFINERIES LTD,ERNAKULAM-25 R1 BY SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 TO R4 BY SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 8121 of 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are before this Court with a prayer to direct the respondents to 'rehabilitate' them pursuant to the finalisation of the land acquisition proceedings, whereby, they have been evicted from the premises on paying the compensation awarded. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioners who are husband and wife were having different extents of property, lying side by side which were sought to be acquired at the instance of 5th respondent. The property was categorized by the Land Acquisition Authorities as “property without any proper access/passage” from the road. Aggrieved of such categorization and apprehending immediate dispossession, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P (C) No.34436/2009, which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment. As per the said verdict, the 2nd respondent was directed to conduct a site inspection with notice to the petitioners and the petitioners or their representatives W.P (C) No. 8121 of 2011 2 were to be given an opportunity to show the access to the property, as they might claim, subject to which alone, could the proceedings be finalised, followed by dispossession. 3. In the course of further proceedings, notices were issued to the petitioners as to the steps intended to be pursued, aggrieved of which, the petitioners approached this Court again by filing W.P(C) No.2561/2010, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment. The grievance of the petitioners with regard to the categorization was also dealt with by this Court, observing that, it was a matter which could be agitated by the petitioners before the Land Acquisition Officer and in turn before the Land Acquisition Court by seeking for reference under the relevant provisions of law. It has been specifically observed in the opening para of Ext.P3 judgment that the acquisition proceedings are not under challenge in the writ petition. 4. Taking note of the prayer of the petitioners that the petitioners wanted to have one week's time to surrender vacant possession of the property, the same was granted while disposing of the writ petition as per judgment dated 10th December, 2009. The case of the petitioners now agitated before this Court in this writ W.P (C) No. 8121 of 2011 3 petition filed more than one year after the last verdict (Ext.P3), is that the State is duty bound to rehabilitate the persons who are dispossessed pursuant to the acquisition. Absolutely no provision of law is stated or brought to the notice of this Court that any such duty is cast upon the State under the Land Acquisition Act. It is admitted that the petitioners pursuant to the acquisition have been paid the compensation on passing the Award. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded or with regard to any other relevant aspects, it was open for the petitioners to seek for reference under Section 18 of the Act, to the Reference Court. Obviously there was no claim for rehabilitation earlier, as discernible from Exts. P1 and P3 judgments. In the absence of any statutory or contractual rights in this regard, no such remedy can be extended to the petitioners. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge