IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 16692 of 2004(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. CHAKKIRIYODA KOYAMMA, S/O.UMPRAMPAPPADA ASSAINAR, AGED 51 YEARS, CHAKKIRIYODA HOUSE, KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. 2. CHAKKIRIYODA KIDAVU, S/O.UMPRAMPAPPADA ASSAINAR, AGED 55 YEARS, CHAKKIRIYODA HOUSE, KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI. 2. ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KALPENI. 3. UMPRAMPAPPADA HEJEERA, UMPRAMPAPPADA HOUSE,KALPENI, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP. SRI. M.A. SHAFFEEK, SC,LAKSHADWEEP FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.16692/2004-K: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF LAND REGISTER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO. 5/50. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE COMPROMISE IN CIVIL CASE NO.60/52. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20/07/89 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 03/12/2001 IN S.A. NO. 52/96 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 14/08/2003 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.1/2003. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE STAY PETITION. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 12/01/2004 IN W.P. NO. 990/2004. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 03/03/2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16692 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 25th July, 2008. J U D G M E N T Ext.P10 order passed by the first respondent on Ext.P7 appeal filed by the petitioners is under challenge. The following is the gist of the contentions taken by the petitioners :- “Petitioners are members of Chakkiriyoda Tharwad which owns an extent of 3.9 hectares of land in Kalpeni Island. A portion of the above land and a building situated therein was assigned in favour of the third respondent and her mother by two elder members of the Tharwad without the concurrence of other members. The illegal alienation was challenged before the Civil Court which found that the property is a Tharwad property. However, ignoring this the Revenue authorities issued rough patta in favour of the third respondent. Against the order of the Asst.Settlement Officer, the petitioners preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected as per order dated 14.8.2003. Against the above order, petitioners preferred a second appeal before the first respondent as provided under Regulation 78(2) of the L.R.T. Regulation, 1965. Along with the appeal petitioners also filed a stay petition to stop the constructions effected by the third respondent in the disputed property. Since no action was taken by the first respondent, petitioners preferred W.P.No.990/2004 before this Hon'ble Court, which was disposed of by judgment dated 12.1.2004 directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. However, instead of considering the stay petition, the first respondent took up the Second Appeal itself for hearing and rejected the same holding that there is no evidence to show that the property is a Tharwad property. The impugned order is issued without giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to produce further evidence. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. WP NO.16692/04 2 Though notice was taken by publication, there is no appearance. There cannot be any dispute that the direction issued by the court is to consider the interlocutory application. Be that as it may, on going through the appellate order and the averments taken in the writ petition, it is fairly clear that the first respondent has not adverted to all the contentions taken by the petitioners. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the first respondent considers the matter afresh and passes a proper order adverting to all the contentions taken by the petitioners. Ext.P10 is hence set aside with a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders on Ext.P7 adverting to all the contentions taken by the parties, with notice to the petitioners and the third respondent, The needful as above shall be taken within six months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16692 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 25th July, 2008.