IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 28633 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ SUJATHA K, D/O.KUNJU, CHERUMUTTATH HOUSE MUTTOM PO, THOTTUNKARA, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST. BY ADV. SMT.LAILA SUNIL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DIST, 3. MUTTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTOM PO, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DIST,REP,.BY THE SECRETARY. ADDL.R4. SUJATHA K. D/O.KUNJU, CHRUMUTTATH HOUSE, MUTTOM P.O. THOTTUNKARA,THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DT. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO. 3176/2010 DATED 05/03/2010) ADV. SRI.B.RAJESH FOR R3 SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR) FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.P.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.28633/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE THEN CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DT.25/11/2004 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION O THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DT 25/11/2004 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE THEN MLA THODUPUZHA DT.4/10/2005 EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF IDUKKI DT 14/6/2006 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE MLA CUM MINISTER DATED 8/8/2006 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER FROM THE TAHSILDAR,THODUPUZHA TO THE PETITIONER DT.19/05/2008. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE MUTTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT.21/1/2009. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE MUTTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT DT.20/04/2009. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE FROM LOK ADALAT THODUPUZHA DT. 5/5/2009. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER UNDER THE R.I.ACT DT.17/8/2009. EXT.P11: TWO PHOTOGRAPHS (MARKED AS A & B) SHOWING THE SAID ALLOTED PLOT AND THE CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P12: TWO PHOTOGRAPHS (MARKED AS C & D) SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PETITIONER'S LIVING IN THE SMALL ABODE, EXT.P13: 6 PHOTOGRAPHS (MARKED AS ETO J) SHOWING THE STATUS OF THE PLOT AND THE STEERING PLACES AVAILABLE FOR VEHICLES IN THE LOCALITY. WPC NO. 28633/09 -2- EXTS. OF R3 EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DT.25/1/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE MATHAPPARA COLONY RESIDENT MEMBERS. EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE MATHAPPARA COLONY MEMBERS DT. 11/04/2009 EXT.R3(c): TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NOS. 1 & 1(i) DT.20/04/2009 OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28633 OF 2009 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 5th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is blind by birth and is an epileptic. It is stated that she is unemployed and has to look after her aged and sickly bed ridden mother. She had no place to live, and finally on account of the representations made by her to the Panchayat, the Panchayat passed Ext.P7 resolution, to allot the petitioner 4 cents of vacant land in Mathapara Colony subject to the condition that the same shall not be transferred. 2. It would appear that coming to know of the same, the residents of the colony submitted Ext.R3(a) representation to the Panchayat seeking cancellation of Ext.P7. The reason stated in Ext.R3(a) is that the land alloted to the petitioner was set apart for common purposes and that if the land is occupied by the petitioner, that will affect its common user. It would appear that based on Ext.R3(a) representation, the Panchayat passed Ext.P8 resolving to review Ext.P7 and to allot the petitioner an alternative piece of land. 3. Petitioner moved the Lok Adalath and also the authorities, which did not evoke any response. It was thereafter that she filed WPC No. 28633/09 :2 : this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P8 and for getting Ext.P7 implemented. 4. Ext.P8 resolution of the Panchayat is to cancel Ext.P7 and to allot the petitioner an alternative suitable land. But even as of now, Panchayat has not identified any land which could be offered to the petitioner in lieu of the land mentioned in Ext.P7. Although the Panchayat suggested allotment of a plot of land in the land acquired for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project, there was no progress in that proposal as well. Therefore, this Court by order dated 17th of November, 2009 directed the learned Government Pleader to obtain instructions from the competent officer of MVIP in this regard. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions and it is now submitted that the land of MVIP was acquired for the purpose of Muvattupuzha Valley Irrigation Project and that once the project is implemented, the whole acquired land will get submerged in water. It is also stated that even the present occupants of the area are proposed to be evicted by the respondents. In these circumstances, MVIP officials are unable to allot any portion of their land and the said stand of theirs' cannot be faulted. WPC No. 28633/09 :3 : 5. This Court also called for a report from the Deputy Director of Panchayats, who has submitted report dated 2/11/2009. In that report, the suggestion made by the Deputy Director of Panchayat is that since the proposal of the Panchayat to allot alternate land for the petitioner did not so far materialise, it is only proper to permit the petitioner to retain the 4 cents alloted by Ext.P7. 6. Having considered the matter in its entirety, I am inclined to think that the suggestion made by the Deputy Director of Panchayat is a reasonable one. Panchayat has accepted the fact that the petitioner is blind, epileptic and in distress circumstances and unemployed. It was taking into account these circumstances that the Panchayat resolved to allot to her 4 cents of land. Eventhough, at a later point, Panchayat themselves resolved to review Ext.P7, that again was subject to the condition that alternate land would be alloted. The allotment of alternate land has not materialised so far and not even a concrete proposal is coming from the Panchayat. In such circumstances, it will be arbitrary to cancell Ext.P7. Therefore, I consider that Ext.P7 should be honoured by the Panchayat atleast until the alternate WPC No. 28633/09 :4 : land is identified and alloted to the petitioner. 7. Therefore, quashing Ext.P8, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Panchayat to honour Ext.P7 atleast until a suitable land is identified and alloted to the petitioner. In view of the direction as above, the Panchayat will also consider the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of Ext.P10 scheme. The decision in this behalf shall be taken by the Panchayat within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp