Dismissed

Pouli v. Union of India

Kerala HC13 Jan 2022WP(C)/18608/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench dismissed a writ petition where petitioners sought to restrain the disbursement of compensation under land acquisition for property included in a partition suit whose decree was appealed to. The court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to interfere with pending appeals on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to disburse compensation refused; writ petition dismissed.

Pouli Vs Union of India — Partition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18608 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 POULI, AGED 85, W/O. LATE ALEXANDER, KOLARIKKAL HOUSE, THUDIYIL, CHITTOOR P. O., SOUTH CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 027.

¶8

2 ELSY, AGED 80, W/O. JOHN, MANAKKIL HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683101.

¶9

3 HELEN, AGED 79, W/O. HUBERT, MURIKKANTHARA HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA - 688 537.

¶10

4 SHERLY, AGED 75, W/O. LEO PAUL, KOCHIKKAD HOUSE, VARAPPUZHA P.O., THERVARKAD, ERNAKULAM - 683 517.

¶11

5 MARGRET, AGED 71, W/O. REDDY, PRAKKAL HOSE, GOTHURUTHU P.O.,

¶12

ERNAKULAM - 683 594.

¶13

6 ANNIE, AGED 69, W/O. XAVIER, VALLUVASSERY HOUSE, CHILAVANNOOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

¶14

7 USHA, AGED 66, W/O. JAMES, VADAKKAL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM - 683 106.

¶15

8 NIMMY, AGED 62, W/O. BHASI, PAVAPPALLY HOUSE, 207A JUVALAGIRI, KOCHI REFINERY, AMBALAMUGHAL P. O., ERNAKULAM - 682 302.

¶16

9 SHAJI, AGED 60, S/O. LATE CELIN, PALLATH HOUSE, THAMMANAM P.O., KOCHI - 682 032.

¶17

BY ADVS.

¶18

K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
K.S.SREEREKHA
RAHUL.S
JACQUELINE JACKSON

¶19

WP(C) NO. 18608 OF 2021

¶20

2

¶21

RESPONDENTS:

¶22

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶23

2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUISITION, N.H.66, ATHANI NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM - 683 513.

¶24

3 MATHAI, AGED 60, S/O. LATE GEORGE @ VAKKACHAN, VADASSERY HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU, ERNAKULAM - 683 518.

¶25

4 JOY @ ANILKUMAR S/O. POULOSE, VADASSERY HOUSE, KOONAMMAVU, ERNAKULAM - 683 518.

¶26

5 MRS. IRINE ALOYSIOUS, W/O JOSEPH ALOYSIOUS, AGED 69, KADUNGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANAYATH, THEVARA, KOCHI-PIN-682 013

¶27

BY ADVS.
PRAVEEN K.V
B.RAMACHANDRAN
S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
SHIJU VARGHESE
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
MANU VYASAN PETER

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

WP(C) NO. 18608 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

It is a writ petition seeking a direction not to
disburse the compensation awarded under an acquisition
proceedings with respect to a part of subject matter of
a suit for partition, which was partly decreed, against
which two appeals and a cross objection were preferred
by the respective parties, which are pending
consideration. It is submitted that while granting a
decree, the trial court has excluded item Nos. 1 to 12
properties covered by two gift deeds, Ext.B17 and
Ext.B18 dated 24/1/1956 in favour of the sons of the
first defendant. Admittedly, those gift deeds were not
brought under challenge within the period of limitation
and no suit was instituted in that behalf. But, it is
not permissible to go into the merits and demerits of
the decree which are under challenge and pending
consideration before this court. Prima facie it
appears that a writ petition cannot be maintained with

¶33

WP(C) NO. 18608 OF 2021

¶34

4

¶35

respect to the said property or any part thereof in
order to injunct the other party, especially when it is
the subject matter of pending appeals. Hence, the writ
petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

WP(C) NO. 18608 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18608/2021

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1THE COPY OF THE DECREE PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
SUB COURT, NORTH PARAVUR IN O.S.NO.121/2002
DATED 24.02.2006.
Exhibit P2THE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGES
OF NOTIFICATION THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA
MANORAMA DAILY ON 21.08.2021.
Exhibit P3THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER NO.9 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R4(A)DATED 24-2-2006, TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
O.S.NO.121 OF 2002 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT, NORTH
PARAVUR
EXT.R3(A)TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR DATED 22-12-2005 PREPARED
FOR THE SAID ACQUISITION BY SPECIAL TAHASILDAR
(LA)
EXT.R4(B)TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN LAC 62/05 PASSED BY
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NATIONAL HIGHWAY
NO.III VYTTILA, DATED 27.02.2007
EXHIBIT R4(C)TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
23.03.2009 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE’S COURT,
NORTH PARAVUR IN LAR NO.80 OF 2007 AND
CONNECTED CASES, INCLUDING LAR 182 OF 2007,
DATED 23.03.2009
EXHIBIT R4(D)TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN THIS REGARD BEARING
NO.EKMLCRD/LPM/SAR-3618-13(2)/211/2011 DATED
31.08.2021

Pouli v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pouli v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.Siddharthan Vs C.Raveendran

C.D.Thankachan Vs C.D.Joseph

Raman Vs Paru

B. Prasannakumari Vs a. Thomas

P.Nazeer Vs P.Laila Beevi

Jayaprakash Vs Mary Dayil