IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 40442 of 2003(M)
1. PULIPURA ABOOBACKER, PULIPURA HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF
... Respondent
2. COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE OF THE
3. SETTLEMENT OFFICER, COLLECTORATE OF
4. SMT. ATHEMPAPEYAPURA, KADEESHOMMA,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :20/07/2010
O R D E R
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, 1= 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