IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 20093 of 2007(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.RAMESAN, KARTHIKA NIVAS, PALLIPPURAM.P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, K.S.I.D.C., CHERTHALA. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, CHERTHALA. 4. THE PRESIDENT, CHANNAM PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIPPURAM P.O, CHERTHALA(CHAIRMAN, REHABILITATION COMMITTEE, INDUSTRIAL GROWTH CENTRE, PALLIPPURAM, CHERTHALA). ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5. CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY CHENNAM PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA Impleaded vide order dated 25/7/07 in I.A.No. 10202/07 BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SC, KSIDC FOR R1 & 2 SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) FOR R4-5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY VARGHESE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 8-4-05 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31-5-05 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 7-7-05 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED ON 30-1-06 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTEES OF REHABILITATION PLOTS EXT.R1(B) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GROWTH CENTRE REHABILITATION PANCHAYAT MEETING HELD ON 27-12-2005 /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No.20093 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The property belonging to the petitioner was acquired for the purposes of the establishment of industrial growth centre at Pallippuram and pursuant to award passed by the land acquisition officer, he was paid compensation. On the basis of the rehabilitation package which had been offered by the requisitioning authority for persons who were deprived of their residential houses on account of the acquisition, various plots were offered to the evictees for rehabilitation and the petitioner would choose plot plot No.4 as per Ext.R1(a). It is not disputed that the choice of plot No.4 was made by the petitioner on his own volition. The petitioner after choosing plot No.4 would raise a complaint that the Koppuzha-Kavungal road passes through the very middle of plot No.4 and therefore it is not possible for him to have maximum utilisation of the property since the plot is divided into two small plots. He moved the rehabilitation committee voicing his grievances and the committee took Ext.R1(b) decision. The decision in WPC.No.20093/07 2 Ext.R1(b) is that the road will be re-located to the eastern side of the plot and that the plot allotted to the petitioner under Ext.R1(a) will thus be made a single plot. Complaining that Ext.R1(b) is not implemented, the petitioner approached this court seeking the following relief: “ direct the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the decision of the Rehabilitation committee dated 27-12-2005 and put the petitioner into the 10 cents allotted to the petitioner.” 2. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the third respondent land acquisition officer and by the requisitioning authority. The requisitioning authority's counter is that it is the obligation of the Panchayat since the president of the Panchayat is the convener of the rehabilitation committee to implement Ext.R1(b). The secretary of the Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows: “ Petitioner's property was acquired for the purpose of 1st respondent corporation. After the acquisition, the first respondent granted 10 cents of land to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation scheme. To the knowledge of this respondent, petitioner has chosen the plot himself and accepted WPC.No.20093/07 3 the same. Later the petitioenr, finding that this plot can't be used for building purpose started making hue and cry which eventually was settled by Ext.R1 (b). Though the president of the Panchayat was a member of the committee which passed Ext.R1(b), the same has not been accepted by the Panchayat committee. This respondent made enquiry as to the feasibility of the decision of the Rehabilitation committee in Ext.R1(b) after the filing of this writ petition and is found that the beneficiaries of the road is against any deviation of the the road. It is also found that if Panchayat makes any effort to deviate the road, it will have serious consequences.” 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.J.Omprakash, learned counsel for the requisitioning authority Sri.Jayapradeep, learned Government Pleader Sri.Basant Balaji and the learned counsel for the Panchayat Sri.G.Gopakumar. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, I am of the view that in view of the definite stand now taken by the Panchayat before this court that it is not practically possible to WPC.No.20093/07 4 implement Ext.R1(b) decision in view of the opposition from the local public, this court will not be justified in issuing a mandamus for implementing Ext.R1(b) decision. After all plot No. 4 was chosen by the petitioner on his own volition. At the same time the fact that Ext.R1(b) was taken, cannot be lost sight of. I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to seek implementation of Ext.R1(b), if so advised by resorting to the process of the regular civil court. In the alternative, I permit him to file a representation before the requisitioning authority voicing his grievances. If any such representation is received from the petitioner by the requisitioning authority within three weeks of the petitioner receiving a copy of this judgment, that authority will consider the representation, hear the petitioner and take a decision. Decision once taken will be communicated to the petitioner. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.20093/07 5