Kollam Jilla Theeradesa Purogamana vs State of Kerala, The Land Revenue Commissioner and The District Collector

A.K. Basheer, J.—Petitioner-Organisation claims that it is engaged in undertaking welfare measures for the benefit of people living on the sea coast of Kollam. According to the petitioner, it had rendered commendable service to the victims of the last Tsunami, which hit the sea coast.

This Writ Petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

i. to call for the records leading to the proposal to acquire 67.40 Acre of land for rehabilitation of Tsunami victims in Kollam District as identified in Ext. P1 and quash the same by issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction;

ii. to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Government to find out alternative lands and identify them choosing the land keeping in mind the possible disaster prone areas and provide rehabilitation to the Tsunami victims in a proper manner.

Admittedly, the Government through its revenue/ district administration, has been implementing certain measures to rehabilitate the Tsunami victims. Respondent No. 3 has filed not less than three counter affidavits indicating the various steps taken by the Governmental agencies for rehabilitation of these people. Respondent No. 2 has also filed counter affidavits indicating the various steps taken by the Government for implementation of the rehabilitation projects utilising the State and Central funds.

Additional respondents 4, 5 and 6 who are the victims of Tsunami have filed counter affidavits expressing reservation about the sufficiency and efficacy of the work being carried out by the various departments under the Tsunami rehabilitation project.

We do not propose to refer to the various items of work indicated in the counter affidavits filed by respondents 2 and 3 and the list/schedule/sketch annexed to the counter affidavits. Suffice it to say, prima facie, we are satisfied that considerable effort is being made by the Government in alleviating the grievance of the victims.

However, it is contended by Sri. T. Ramaprasad Unni, learned Counsel for the petitioner that many of the lands identified by the Government for construction of buildings to rehabilitate the victims are situated far away from the sea coast and there is no other benefit in such project. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that many of the beneficiaries are wary in accepting those buildings/lands for the obvious reason that they may not be in a position to carry out their avocation, namely, fishing, if they are rehabilitated far away from the sea cost. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that some of the lands identified by the Government are still worse in as much as they are likely to be affected by another Tsunami because they are too close to the sea-coast. We do not propose to deal with the above contention at this stage since, in our view, the Government and its machineries are more competent to decide such matters especially as there is no material before us to show that the lands identified by the Government are totally unsuitable for the project.

However, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated October 4, 2009 identifying certain lands in Thazhuthala village of Kollam Taluk which according to it would ideal for rehabilitation. The petitioner has indicated the Survey numbers of some lands in the said village, which according to it are eminently suitable for rehabilitation and which will not be affected by Tsunami in the future. We do not express any opinion on this aspect either. In our view it has to be left to the wisdom of the Government to consider whether the lands proposed by the petitioner would be suitable or ideal for rehabilitating the Tsunami victims. If there is a proposal to acquire further lands in the area referred to above, it will be open to the Government to consider the above proposal made by the petitioner and acquire those lands also if additional lands are required.

In this context, learned Counsel points out that Ext. R4(a) representation has been submitted by respondent No. 4, a victim of Tsunami before the Principal Secretary (Revenue) highlighting all the above aspects. Petitioner may submit a further representation incorporating the proposals, if any, in addition to those mentioned in the affidavit referred to above. It will be open to the Government to consider the above representation along with Ext. R4(a) and the affidavit filed by the petitioner today, and take an appropriate decision in the matter.

With the above observation, the Writ Petition is closed.