IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 26TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 7TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 1077 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.30639/2005 Dated 18/06/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------------ K.B. PURUSHOTHAMAN, KAITHOTHU HOUSE, PIPE LINE ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN -25. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.BOSE, MR.VINOD MADHAVAN, SMT.NISHA BOSE. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. 3. LAND ACQUSITION SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (GENERAL),ERNAKULAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HUDCO DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, COCHIN -11. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.MEERA R4 ADV. MR.BABU VARGHESE, SC, KWA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.30/2009 IN W.A.NO.1077/2008 DISMISSED 26/02/2009 SD/- J.B.KSHY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- V.GIRI, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V.Giri, J. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1077 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of February, 2009 Judgment Koshy, Ag.C.J. By Ext.P4 judgment a Division Bench of this Court directed as follows: “..... Under the package scheme first respondent is entitled to be rehabilitated. Government Pleader submitted that on executing the agreement the balance amount would be reimbursed. In such circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal permitting the writ petitioner to approach the Government in the event of which Government would reimburse the amount, if any, due to him on his executing the agreement. With regard to rehabilitation, the Government and the Water Authority would take expeditious steps and would complete the rehabilitation process within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” Thereafter, this Court by Ext.P7 judgment dated 16.12.2004 in W.P.(C) No.34579 of 2004 held as follows: “..... He submits on instruction that Ext.P14 is an agreement of the nature similar to those which are executed by persons similarly situated to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, there is no reason for any apprehension for the petitioner, since it is beyond dispute that any content of Ext.P14 agreement will be subject to the entitlement as found by this court W.A.No.1077/2008 2 in Ext.P9 judgment in which Ext.P8 has merged. So much so, this writ petition is disposed of holding that nothing contained in Ext.P14 will stand against the petitioner to secure any further relief as may be available to him on the basis of Ext.P9 judgment.” Petitioner has already executed Ext.P5 agreement. The learned Judge in Ext.P7 held that the above agreement will be subject to the entitlement as found in Ext.P9 judgment (Ext.P4 herein). So, no further agreement can be insisted upon by the Water Authority or the Government for giving rehabilitation benefit as mentioned in Ext.P4 judgment. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge. However, we also direct that rehabilitation benefit and benefits under Ext.P4 and impugned judgment should be given to the petitioner immediately without any delay, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment without insisting for a fresh agreement. The writ appeal is disposed of with the above directions. J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice V. Giri Judge vaa