Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE19H DAY OF FEBRUARY201430TH MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 2702 of 2014 (K) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- C. CHELLAM, AGED48YEARS S/O. CHOKKALINGAM PILLAI, RESIDING AT TC NO.36/1288 SAI BHAVAN, SNRW-35, SUBASH NAGAR PERUMTHANNI, VALLAKKADAVU P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR SRI.V.V.MITHUN SRI.C.SREEJITH (ELAMAKKARA) RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, OPPOSITE LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
3. THE SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
4. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY CORPORATION SOCIAL WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.3126 TC NO.28/2013, THAKARAPARAMBU ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION KODAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
7. VIJAYARAGHAVAN NAIR, NEW EURO MENSWARE, TC282218/2, THAKARAPPARAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA R1, R5 & R6 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR R2 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1902-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2702 of 2014 (K) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- P1 : COPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DTD. 11.11.2011 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE4H RESPONDENT. P2 : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE AREA WHERE PROPOSED BUNK SHOP IS SITUATED AND THE PETITIONER'S SHOP ROOM. P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED231.2014 NO.S1/221/2003/TRIDA RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.2702 of 2014 ------------------------------- Dated 19th February, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner who is running a business under the name and style `S.S. Enterprises' in Thakaraparambu road at Melepazhavangadi in Thiruvananthapuram filed this writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allot the 1st bunk shop room provided at the entrance of the Thakaparambu road facing the Thampanoor - Melepazhavangadi road to the petitioner herein, constructed for temporary rehabilitation taking into account the position of his shop in the present premises which is under acquisition. The petitioner also contended that the shop room presently occupied by him would not in any way affect the construction of a flyover at Thakaraparambu across M.G. Road under the City Road Improvement Project since the flyover is to pass above the said shop room at a height of nearly 50 metres. In short, according to the petitioner, in the said circumstances, there is absolutely no need to acquire that part of the building which is notified for acquisition for the aforesaid purpose and presently in occupation of the petitioner. The petitioner is challenging the action on the part of the respondents in going on with the construction without providing rehabilitation. It is contended that during the pendency of this writ petition respondents 2 WP(C).No.2702/2014 2 and 3 constructed four bunk shops opposite to the petitioner's shop room at the entrance of the Thakaraparambu road and at the same time, the first among the four shop rooms was allotted to the 7th respondent and according to the petitioner, going by the position of his shop in the building which is now to be taken over and demolished, it should have been allotted to him.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. It is stated therein that the construction of the flyover is in full swing and the 3rd respondent had spent about Rs.45 lakhs towards the costs of construction of the rehabilitation block at Central Theatre Road and the contention of the petitioner that the shop room occupied by him and situated in the building to be surrendered would not affect the construction of the flyover is refuted by the third respondent. In paragraph 4 of the statement it is stated that earlier a temporary rehabilitation space in the aforesaid rehabilitation block viz., shop No.8 having an area of 10.23 m2 was allotted to the 7th respondent and shop No.7 having an area of 10.31 m2 was allotted to the petitioner. However, both the petitioner and the 7th respondent were not willing to occupy those shops. Subsequently, based on the discussions with the traders it was agreed to construct bunk shops opposite to the petitioner's WP(C).No.2702/2014 3 shop and accordingly, five bunks were constructed. It is stated therein that two among them are meant for the purpose of housing the site office of the Kerala Road Fund Board and out of the remaining three bunks, bunk No.1 having an area of 7.92m2 was alloted to the 7th respondent and bunk No.3 having an area of 7.89m2 was allotted to the petitioner. It is also specifically stated in paragraph 4 of the statement that the shop presently occupied by the petitioner is having only an area of 6.84m2. In paragraph 5 of the statement it is further stated that the 7th respondent accepted the notice and remitted the rent and deposit and also had executed an agreement with TRIDA in the matter of occupation of bunk shop No.1. It is also specifically stated therein that the petitioner had refused to accept the notice and thereupon, it was pasted on the walls of the shop building belonging to the petitioner. Thus, it is obvious from the statement that after deliberation with the traders and taking note of their objections with respect to the shops constructed near the Central Theatre, the third respondent constructed bunks opposite to the petitioner's shop. Shop No.3 was offered to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is not accepting the same. Now, the petitioner himself produced the said notice dated 23.1.2014 viz., Ext.P3 along with I.A.No.1793 of 2014 filed in this writ petition. However, I.A.No.1794 of 2014 has been moved by the petitioner to stay the operation of Ext.P3. WP(C).No.2702/2014 4 True that as per Ext.P3 the petitioner was also required to give vacant possession of the shop room presently occupied by him. There cannot be any basis for the contention that while allotting the bunk shop rooms it should be allotted taking into account the position of the shop room presently occupied by the petitioner as also the others in the old building which is sought to be surrendered. Evidently, the petitioner was allotted a bunk which is having an area of 7.89 m2 and it is the contention of the respondents that the present shop occupied by the petitioner is having only an area of 6.84 m2. Whatever that be, when, as part of such rehabilitation scheme at the instance of the petitioner and the other shop owners, arrangements were made and the shop rooms constructed by them were allotted to them, it is for the petitioners and others to execute an agreement with TRIDA and occupy the allotted rooms. Under such rehabilitation package what is ensured is only a rehabilitation. Going by the contentions in the statement it is evident that the petitioner has been allotted the shop room which is having more space than the one which is presently occupied by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 7th respondent is yet to be vacated from the old building. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that after accepting the offer made by the 3rd respondent in respect of Shop No.1 the 7th respondent executed an agreement and expressed his willingness to WP(C).No.2702/2014 5 vacate the presently occupied shop room at any point of time on demand. It is further submitted that despite the receipt of notice the petitioner yet to vacate the same. In the said circumstances obtained in this case, I do not find any reason to accept the contentions of the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs as sought for. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. If the petitioner is willing to occupy the shop room alloted to him he may occupy the same after complying with the required formalities therefor, within a week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner refuses to vacate the present shop room within the said stipulated time it will be open to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law and they will be at liberty to seek police assistance in case of necessity to give effect to this verdict. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS