IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 10498 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- OS.10/1990 of DISTRICT COURT, LAKSHADWEEP .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KOCHITHITHIYAPURA HAMZA, KAVARATHI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. MELAKOCHIPURA MOHAMMED. 2. -DO- MULLAKOYA. 3. -DO- BASHEER. 4. -DO- BEEFATHUMMA. 5. -DO- CHERIYABI. 6. -DO- ANWAR. 7. -DO- NISAMUDHEEN. 8. -DO- NOUSHAD. 9. -DO- RAZIABI. 10. -DO- RADHEENABI. 11. KOCHITHITHIYAPURA MUHAMMED. 12. -DO- ATTAKIDAVE. 13. -DO- HAJAROMMA. 14. -DO- AYSOMMA. 15. -DO- SAROMMA. 16. -DO- HAMEEDA. 17. -DO- HABUSABI. 18. -DO- BEEFATHUMMA. 19. -DO- SHUKKOOR. 20. -DO- ASHRAF. 21. -DO- AYSABI. (ALL ARE KAVARATHI ISLANDERS). BY ADV.SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1:- True copy of the I.A.54/2006 in O.S.10/90 Sub Court, Kavarathi dated 4.4.2006. Ext.P2:- True copy of the work memo in O.S.10/90 dated 17.11.2006 Ext.P3:- True copy of the Commission report in I.A.75/2006 in I.A.54/2006 in O.S.10/90 dated 4.5.2007. Ext.P4:- True copy of the objection in O.S.10/90 dated 25.7.2007 Ext.P5:- True copy of the application in O.S.10/90 dated 30.8.2007. Ext.P6:- True copy of the order in IA 79/2007 in IA 54/2006 in O.S.10/90 District Court, Lakshadweep dated 30.1.2008. Ext.P7:- True copy of the application in I.A.75/2006 in I.A.54/2006 in O.S.10/90 dated 25.2.2008. /true copy/ P.S to Judge M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.10498 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P6 order passed by the learned District Judge, Lakshadweep whereunder the report and accounts submitted by the Commissioner was remitted for rectifying the defects. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that under Ext.P6 order, learned District Judge did not consider the objections raised by petitioner and stating that objections were considered earlier and confirmed by the High Court and therefore they do not arise. What is stated by the learned District Judge in Ext.P6 order is that contentions raised by petitioners were already rejected by the judgment of the Court W.P.(C)10498/2008 2 which is confirmed by the High Court which could only be the preliminary decree and the appeal filed against it. Objections raised by the petitioner to the report submitted by the Commissioner cannot be considered by the District Court or by this Court in the preliminary decree. Therefore evidently learned District Judge did not consider the objections properly. 4. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that it has been specifically contended by petitioners that the Commissioner, did not value the building properly and also did not value the land apart from valuing the building and these objections were not considered. Learned counsel also pointed out that Ext.P7 petition was filed for valuing the building by an expert engineer. Learned counsel appearing for respondents pointed out that petitioner sought adjournment of Ext.P7 application and before the trial court could pass orders Writ Petition is filed and therefore Ext.P7 petition was not disposed. 5. On hearing the learned counsel and going W.P.(C)10498/2008 3 through Ext.P6 order, it is clear that learned District Judge did not consider the objections. The order shows that the report was remitted to the Commissioner to cure the defects. But the operative portion of the order shows that the petition was dismissed. The order shows that none of the objections raised by the petitioners were considered. Though it is stated that contentions were considered by the court earlier at the time of passing the preliminary decree, the objections raised by the petitioners could not have been even raised at this stage. In such circumstance, Ext.P6 order is quashed. District Judge, Lakshadweep is directed to consider the objections raised to the Commissioner's report and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without delay. District Judge is also directed to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P7, as expeditiously as possible. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006