IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 7558 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SATHYAN, AGED 49, S/O.KARUTHA KUNJU, SATHYALAYAM HOUSE, THARAYIL KADAVU MURI, ARATTUPEZHA VILLAGE, KASRTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE (CIVIL STATION) ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, HARIPAD P.O., PIN-690 514, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARATTUPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE, ARATTUPUZHA, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 560. 4. THE SECRETARY ARATTUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ARATTUPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. THE SECRETARY, DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GEORGE VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).7558/11 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2008 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.09 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.09 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT DATED 5.1.09 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 8.3.10 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 8.3.10 TO 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 22.3.2010 EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE AND APPLICATION DATED 23.6.10. (True copy) P.A To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).7558/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a fisherman. His family consists of his wife, two daughters and his aged mother. They are the victims of the Tzunami disaster that occurred on 26.12.2004. As part of the rehabilitation package, the first respondent sanctioned an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the petitioner for constructing a new residential building. It is stated that the scheme provided for payment in four instalments, three of which have already been disbursed. Still to complete the construction work, the fourth instalment has to be disbursed which has been declined by the authorities for the reason that the petitioner has not demolished the existing structure. It is therefore, that this writ petition has been filed. 2. On behalf of the first respondent, a statement has been filed. In paragraph 4 and 5 of the statement, it has been stated thus:- “It is submitted that as per the regulations of Coastal Regulation Zone no new construction can be made in the restricted coastal area and W.P.(C).7558/11 2 sanction is accorded only to renew the existing building or to construct building instead of the existing building. It is submitted that the beneficiaries were informed in advance that the 4th instalment will be granted only on demolition of the existing unsecured structure and this decision was taken as a precautionary measure to avoid any unfortunate incident which may affect the life of the people who are residing in the unsecured existing houses and also to obey the norms of Coastal Regulation Zone. It is submitted that the petitioner refused to demolish the existing unsecured structure of this house and hence, the 4th instalment is not released to the petitioner. The 4th instalment can be released only on demolition of the existing unsecured structure. If the petitioner is granted 4th instalment without complying the above condition the unsecured structure will be used again for residential purpose and it will cause threat to the life of the occupants. The regulation of Coast Restrict Zone also does not permit to construct a new house in the restricted area without the demolition of existing old structure. In the above circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to release the 4th instalment cannot be allowed without demolishing the old unsecured structure.” W.P.(C).7558/11 3 3. Thus, according to the respondents, the Scheme contemplated payment in four instalments and as a condition for receiving the last instalment, the existing structure should be demolished and as the petitioner has not complied with this requirement, the instalment has not been disbursed. 4. Fact remains that if strict compliance of the said condition is insisted, petitioner will have to demolish the existing structure, while at the same time, the new structure remains incomplete. This means, the petitioner will have to find out a new accommodation at least for an interim period. It is therefore, that he submits that he be permitted to continue occupation of the existing structure and that accepting an undertaking from him that on completion of the new structure, he will demolish the existing structure and simultaneously occupy the new building, the fourth instalment be disbursed to him. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a fisherman with a large family and also that during the interim period he will have to stay elsewhere, I am inclined to think that in the peculiar facts of the case, the condition of demolition of the existing structure should be waived and to enable him to complete the W.P.(C).7558/11 4 building, the last instalment should be disbursed to the petitioner, provided the petitioner furnish an undertaking to the third respondent to demolish the existing structure on completion of the new one and to occupy the same. 6. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions. Petitioner shall furnish an undertaking to the third respondent to demolish the existing structure on completion of the construction of the new one to occupy the same simultaneously. Once such undertaking is furnished as above, the fourth instalment will be disbursed to the petitioner and on its receipt, petitioner should complete the construction within two months and occupy the new structure, demolishing the existing one. It is clarified that in the event after receiving the payment as above, if the petitioner does not complete the construction or refuse to demolish the existing structure or occupy the same, respondents will be free to cancel the building alloted to the petitioner and resume it from him and also recover the amount paid to the petitioner, in any manner, in accordance with law. W.P.(C).7558/11 5 Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs