T. Thankachi And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 30 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2120 of 2008()



1. T. THANKACHI AND ANOTHER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

 Dated :30/10/2008

 O R D E R
                  H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
                         -------------------------------------------
                                W.A.No.2120 of 2008
                          ------------------------------------------
                   Dated, this the 30th day of October, 2008

                                 JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single

Judge in W.P.(C) No.26242 of 2007 dated 26th May, 2008, the petitioners

in the writ petition have presented this writ appeal. By the impugned

order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the request of the petitioners

to issue a direction to the respondents/Railway authorities to pay

compensation to their building.

(2) The facts in brief are: The petitioners had filed the writ

petition for a direction to the respondents to pay full compensation for the

destruction of their house in view of the land acquisition proceedings for

conversion of the Quilon – Punalur Railway line from meter gauge to

broad gauge. The contention of the petitioners before this Court was that

in similar cases the Railways have paid the full value of the building to the

concerned parties.

(3) The third respondent in his counter affidavit filed before

this Court had contended that the Railways have no objection in giving

back a portion of the property which was acquired by them for conversion

of the Quilon – Punalur Railway line from meter gauge to broad gauge.

W.A.No.2120 of 2008
2

They have also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that by

Ext.P9 notice the petitioners were informed to approach the Revenue

authorities for getting re-conveyance of 17.84 square metres of land

acquired from them provided they have to pay back the compensation that

was paid on account of the acquired property. They have also stated that

the distance between the petitioners’ building and the Railway line is about

21.50 metres and, therefore, there is no reason for the petitioners to

apprehend that there will be possible destruction of their building.

Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the learned Single Judge,

in our opinion, has rightly rejected the writ petition. That is how the

petitioners in the writ petition are before us in this writ appeal.

(4) The assertion of the petitioners before this Court is that

in view of the conversion of Quilon – Punalur Railway line from meter

gauge to broad gauge and since the petitioners property is near the

Railway line, it would cause damage to their building because of the

vibration that may cause in view of the locomotives passing through the

Railway line. This assertion of the petitioners was seriously disputed by

the third respondent by filing their counter affidavit before this Court.

Since the facts were in dispute, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge

ought to have relegated the petitioners to approach the civil court for

appropriate compensation by adducing enough evidence in support of their

case.

W.A.No.2120 of 2008
3

(5) In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, that the

learned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition. But the

only thing that the learned Judge has not said in his order is that, if for any

reason, the petitioners have any apprehension that because of the

conversion of the Quilon – Punalur Railway line from meter gauge to

broad gauge, their building would be either damaged or destroyed, they

have to file an appropriate civil suit before the jurisdictional civil court.

(6) In that view of the matter, while declining to entertain

this writ appeal, we reserve liberty to the appellants, if they so desire, to

approach the civil court for appropriate reliefs. If and when such a civil

suit is filed, the learned civil Judge shall decide the prayer made in the

plaint in accordance with law, without being influenced by any one of the

observations made by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ

petition.

(7) With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ

appeal is disposed of.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
vns