Saimon Raju vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner says that a property, which was obtained by him through inheritance, has been illegally taken possession of by the 1st respondent - Municipality, for the construction of the EMS Stadium, which they say is now complete and operational. He says that even though the Municipality maintains so, the fact remains that his property was never acquired nor taken possession of from him following due processes; and therefore, that he has been denied eligible compensation of the same and even incapacitated from using it, because it comes within the perimeter of the Stadium. He says that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P8 representation before the Secretary of the Municipality and prays that the same be directed to be taken up and disposed of; and that until such time it is done, his property be not allowed to be used by the Municipality.

Sri.R.Azad Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Municipality, however, controverted the afore submissions of the petitioner, made by his learned counsel - Smt.Jayalatha, saying that the petitioner has not been able to establish any right over the property in question, which is now part of the EMS Stadium, but that the Municipality has an open mind in this regard. He submitted that if the petitioner is able to establish his ownership over the property, which is now required for the purposes of the EMS Stadium, the Secretary is willing to hear him, assess his documents and to grant him eligible compensation, if he is found so entitled, as per law. He therefore, prayed that the Secretary of the Municipality be allowed to take up Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner and dispose it of in terms of law.

In reply, Smt.M.R.Jayalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the second phase of the Stadium appears to be now underway and that unless the Secretary disposes of his representation in terms of law quickly, he will be left high and dry, without any benefit being obtained. She therefore, prayed that this Court direct the Secretary of the Municipality to hear her client and assess the factual situation, by making suitable enquires and investigations; thus leading to final orders on Ext.P8 to be issued within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

Taking note of the afore rival submissions and since this Court cannot adjudicate or evaluate the same on its merits, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am certain that the Secretary of the Municipality must consider Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner and issue appropriate orders thereon at the earliest.

Resultantly, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the Secretary of the Municipality at 11.00 am on 12.10.2021; on which day, the said Authority will hear him or fix another date for hearing and will thereupon proceed to evaluate all his documents - to be produced and which is stated to have already been produced by him - thus culminating in an appropriate order on Ext.P8, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of such hearing.

Needless to say, after the afore exercise, if any property of the petitioner is found to have been acquired, then necessary steps relating to eligible compensation shall also be taken by the competent Authority without any avoidable delay thereafter.

It goes without saying that until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, status quo with respect to the property in question as on today, will be maintained by both sides.