T.Gireeshan Vs State of Kerala

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of 3 cents of property in Sy.No. 1453/6 of Nadama Village with 3 shoprooms situated therein, as per Ext.P1 Will. It is stated that, out of the said property, the petitioner sold 2 cents of property with a shop room to one Shamsudheen, leaving a balance of 0.914 cents of property with shoprooms bearing Nos. 630/37 and 637/37 of Tripunithura Municipality. The said property was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of expansion of the Statute Junction at Tripunithura. Since no notice was issued to the petitioner, he filed O.S.No. 72/2013 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam seeking a declaration that the above property belongs to the petitioner and that, he is entitled to get compensation for the acquisition of the said property.

¶31

Through Ext.P4 judgment, the suit was decreed as follows:

¶32

“ In the result, the suit is decreed with cost as follows:

¶33

1. It is declared that the plaintiff is the owner of plaint schedule property and the plaintiff is entitled to accept compensation for acquiring the plaint schedule property.

¶34

2. A decree for mandatory injunction is passed directing the defendants to fix the compensation payable to the plaintiff for acquiring the plaint schedule property as per law and disburse the same to the plaintiff.”

¶35

WP(C).NO.5268/2017

¶36

3

¶37

2025:KER:30415

¶38

It is seen that the defendants were not represented and were set ex parte . This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to acquire the property in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner and also, to pass an award of compensation and disburse the same to the petitioner.

¶39

It is not in dispute that the Civil Court had passed Ext.P4 decree against the State as early as 12.4.2016.

¶40

The learned Special Government Pleader submits that they have filed an application before the said Court to set aside the ex parte decree. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that earlier, the petitioner had filed a review against Ext.P4, and the same was dismissed.

¶41

Be that as it may, since the respondents submit that they have filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, I am inclined to grant three months' time to the respondents. On the expiry of three months from today, the respondents will take such steps to comply with Ext.P4 decree and pay the compensation directed therein within a further period of two months.

¶42

The Writ Petition is allowed as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

MOHAMMED NIAS C. P., JUDGE

¶45

MMG

¶46

WP(C).NO.5268/2017

¶47

4

¶48

2025:KER:30415

¶49

APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.5268/2017

¶50

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶51

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY	OF THE W	ILL DEED DTED 10	-3-199	5.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY	OF THE P	LAINT IN OS NO.	72/201	3.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY NO.72/2014	OF THE .	COMMISSION REPO	RT IN	OS
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COP NO.72/2013	Y OF .	THE JUDGMENT	IN	OS
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 10-2016.	OF THE	REPRESENTATION	DATED	2-
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 31/1/2017.	OF T	HE REPRESENTATI	ON DA	TED
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE 41/2025 F BEFORE THE	COPY OF ILED BY MUNSIFF	THE RESTORATION THE RESPONDENT COURT ERNAKULAM	PETIT S HER	ION EIN
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE APPLICATIO O.S.NO.72/	COPY OF N I.A 2013	THE DELAY CO .NO.2/2025 FI	NDONAT LED	ION IN

T.Gireeshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Gireeshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Suhair Vs State Bank of India

Jainendra Kumar, Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

A.M.Abdulla, Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank LTD.NO.K.399 Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

M/S.Creo Homes Vs Union of India

Khayas M Rasheed, Vs the District Collector