IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 40442 of 2003(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PULIPURA ABOOBACKER, PULIPURA HOUSE, KAVARATTI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN SRI.V.V.MATHEW RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 3. SETTLEMENT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE OF UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 4. SMT. ATHEMPAPEYAPURA KADEESHOMMA, D/O. SRI CHAKKEKAL KUTTY OF KAVARATTI W/O. BADAI HASSAINAR, (DRIVER, GENERAL ADMN.) KAVARATTI. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON 20/07/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 40442 of 2003(M) APPENDIX ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIITS ----------------------------- P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.11.1998 P2:- TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.44/98 DATED 14.07.1998 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KAVARATTI. P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.07.2000 IN O.P.NO.19683/2000-R P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTES DATED NIL APRIL 2001 P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL NOTE OF ARGUMENTS DATED 08.01.2002 P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.08.2003 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUEGE. S. SIRIJAGAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 40442 of 2003 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T ------------------------- The petitioner's contention in this writ petition is as follows:- 2. In 1930 the petitioner's grand father one Mr. Pulipura Mohammed Malmi got certain lands in the Suheli Cheriyankara island on lease from the Lakshadweep Administration. After the death of his grand father the petitioner and two other persons became the lessee in 1985, is the contention of the petitioner. The lease was granted by the Lakshadweep Administration for a period of five years to the 4th respondent on 25.02.1985. Against that order of granting lease in favour of the 4th respondent, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Administration. This Court in judgment in O.P.No.3488/85 directed the Administrator to consider that appeal. That appeal was rejected. Against the order rejecting the 2 WP(C) No. 40442 of 2003 appeal, the petitioner filed OP No.7233/91. The order challenged was stayed by this Court. Ultimately by judgment dated 29.05.1998 the original petition was dismissed by pointing out that the land being Government land and the 4th respondent being a landless person, in contradiction to the petitioner who is not a landless person and there is nothing wrong in giving the land on lease to the 4th respondent in so far as the lease is in terms of the Lakshadweep Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation, 1965. Petitioner did not choose to challenge that judgment in appeal and the same has become final. Further he filed a representation before the first respondent pointing out that after the judgment dated 29.05.1998, Exhibit P2 dated 14.07.1998 was executed in favour of the 4th respondent, which would show that she was not a landless person. The petitioner filed O.P.No.19683/2000 before this Court in which by Exhibit P3 judgment, Exhibit P1 appeal was directed to be 3 WP(C) No. 40442 of 2003 disposed of. Pursuant to that, Exhibit P6 order has been passed by the Administrator of the Lakshadweep Administration. In that order after quoting the judgment in O.P No. 7233/91 and after expressing some doubts as to whether the 4th respondent is a landless person, the administrator dismissed the appeal in view of the judgment in OP 7233/91. That order is under challenge before me, in this writ petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the judgment in O.P.No. 7233/91 was rendered on a mistake finding that the 4th respondent is a landless person which is not as is evidenced by Exhibit P2 gift deed executed barely, 1½ months after the judgment in OP No. 7233/91. He would submit that therefore after finding that the 4th respondent is not a landless lady, the first respondent could not have validly rejected the appeal. 4. I have considered the contentions of the parties. None of the respondents have filed any counter affidavit. 4 WP(C) No. 40442 of 2003 I am of the opinion that in so far as the judgment in O.P.No.7233/91 upholding the lease in favour of the 4th respondent has become final, this Court cannot again reconsider the issue and come to a different finding. Of course the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in Exhibit P3 judgment this Court had directed consideration of Exhibit P1 appeal notwithstanding the judgment in O.P.No.7233/91. I am of opinion that, that does not mean that the appeal has to be considered notwithstanding the earlier judgment. Exhibit P3 judgment only directs consideration of Exhibit P1 appeal. Such consideration can only be in accordance with law. The law is that the petitioner cannot reagitate the matter because of principles of resjudicata. The petitioner cannot reagitate the issue regarding the validity of lease in favour of the 4th respondent again by filing another appeal before the first respondent. It is not as if the petitioner is a landless person. Admittedly the petitioner also holds 5 WP(C) No. 40442 of 2003 land on lease from the Government. As such on equity also there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner. As such there is nothing to choose between the petitioner and the 4th respondent. In any event after suffering the judgment in O.P.No.7233/91, the petitioner cannot reagitate the issue again without challenging that judgment. In Exhibit P6 order also the same view has been taken. I cannot fault the same. Therefore there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRIJAGAN, JUDGE. rkc