Licensed Occupant Of Govt 'Puramboke' Land Can't Be Treated As Encroacher For Denying Rehabilitation Benefits: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a person conducting business on government puramboke land under a valid municipal licence cannot be treated as an “encroacher” for the purpose of denying rehabilitation and resettlement compensation when displaced by a public infrastructure project.Justice Viju Abraham was delivering the judgment in a writ petition challenging a government order that...
The Kerala High Court has held that a person conducting business on government puramboke land under a valid municipal licence cannot be treated as an “encroacher” for the purpose of denying rehabilitation and resettlement compensation when displaced by a public infrastructure project.
Justice Viju Abraham was delivering the judgment in a writ petition challenging a government order that stated that the petitioner, who owned a bunk shop in a puramboke area with statutory licence is not entitled to the compensation payable to tenants under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
The petitioner's family had been operating a bunk shop near the Vyttila-Petta road in Kochi since 1970 under licences issued by the Kochi Corporation. The shop was displaced during road widening works connected with the Kochi Metro Rail Project.
Authorities granted the petitioner only Rs.30,000 under a rehabilitation package applicable to “encroachers” on puramboke land. The petitioner challenged this order, and argued that he was similarly situated to others who had received substantially higher rehabilitation compensation.
The State contended that the decision was on the ground that the bunk stood on the government puramboke land and was movable in nature. They further added that no acquisition proceedings were necessary because the land already belonged to the government and the petitioner was entitled only to the limited compensation available to the encroachers under a Government order issued in 2017.
The Court noted that the Government land need not be subjected to acquisition proceeding for development, but it added that th epetitioner and his predecessor held municipality licenses, security deposits and ground rent were regularly paid and the occupation continued with official permission for decades.
“It is true that the Government land need not be subjected to acquisition proceedings and there is no occasion for payment of any compensation. But the position is totally different when Government land is in possession of a person based on a licence/permission as in the case of the petitioner. In the case in hand, the petitioner has been permitted to occupy the Government land based on a licence/permission, including payment of ground rent and has been in occupation from 1970 onwards. In such cases, even if it is a Government land which need not be acquired, the petitioner, when displaced from such land as part of a development activity undertaken by the Government, and the business of running of the bunk, being the only source of livelihood, is affected and which was being conducted by the petitioner/his predecessor for more than 50 years, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the rehablitation package as per Second Schedule of the Act 2013 and the Government Order dated 29.12.2017.” the Court held.
The Court also referred to an earlier judgment in the same litigation where it had already observed that a person occupying puramboke land with municipal permission could not be categorised as an encroacher.
The Court analysed the Act of 2013 and observed that the second schedule of the Act provides for a rehabilitation settlement package for affected families, which includes the land owners and the families whose livelihood was primarily dependent on the land acquired.
The Court further added that the rehabilitation benefits cannot be denied solely because the underlying land belongs to the government.
“The Government Order dated 29.12.2017 was implemented by the Government for giving a better compensation to the persons affected by acquisition than that is fixed as per the second schedule of the Act, 2013, I am of the opinion that the attempt of the Government treating the petitioner as an encroacher relying on the Government Order dated 29.12.2017 is only to deny the compensation legally due to the petitioner, which cannot be accepted at all.” Court added.
The Court thus set aside the District Collector's order restricting compensation to Rs.30,000 and directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioner's claim for compensation under the rehabilitation package notified for the Kochi Metro Rail Project or the 2017 State Government Order.
Authorities were directed to hear the petitioner and determine the compensation payable within two months.
Case Title: Laiju M S v The District Collector and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 31190/ 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
Counsel for Petitioner: S. Sanal Kumar (Sr.), Bhavana Velayudhan. T.S. Seema
Counsel for Respondents: Joby Cyriac, V.P. Rejitha, Kurian K Jose, Devika T.R.