IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 38001 of 2007(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SAJAN, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. THANKAMMA, AYYAMKULATHU HOUSE, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN MR.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 38001/2007-Y APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2005 PASSED THE HUMAN RIGHT COMMISSION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/01/2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 38001 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th June, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that he and his mother were evicted from Ayyappankovil in the year 1962-64 for errection of Idukki Hydro- electric Project. According to the petitioner, at the time of eviction, it was promised that the petitioner and his mother would be rehabilitated by assigning 1 acre of land. The petitioner would submit that in spite of repeated representations, even after admitting the entitlement of the mother of the petitioner for assignment of land, no land is being assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Human Rights Commission, who requested the District Collector to consider the grievance of the petitioner. In spite of the same, no land is being assigned to the petitioner, is the contention raised by the petitioner. 2. The Government has filed a counter affidavit, in which is it stated that although, at some point of time, there was some promise regarding rehabilitation, at present neither the petitioner nor his mother is eligible for any rehabilitation. According to the 1st respondent, who has filed the counter affidavit, 4 cents of land in Sy. No. 1360/37 of Peerumedu village was assigned to the petitioner's mother under the Rehabilitation Housing Scheme and the said 4 cents of land is fully possessed and owned by the petitioner. 3. I have heard both sides. 4. At the time when the eviction had taken place in 1962-64, the petitioner was aged only 5 years. As such, the petitioner in his own right, is not entitled to any rehabilitation apart from his mother. His mother has been given 4 cents of land by the Government. Therefore, I do not think that neither the petitioner nor his mother can now seek assignment of additional land when scores of people are without any place to live in. In fact, the Government is finding it W.P.C. No. 38001/07 -: 2 :- difficult to give land to adivasis who have been promised land. Rehabilitation essentially means giving land for a person who has been thrown to streets on account of acquisition of land. Here, the petitioner's mother has been properly rehabilitated and the petitioner and his mother are living in that land assigned to the petitioner's mother. As such, there is no question of any further rehabilitation. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/