SANKARANARAYANAN Vs. MAMMUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is at the instance of plaintiff as to correctness of report and plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner after the earlier report was remitted to him. Petitioner/plaintiff sued respondent for a decree for prohibitory injunction scheduling 2.88 acres as the property over which petitioner claimed title and possession. Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.P2, report to which petitioner preferred Ext.P3, objection stating that Commissioner has not considered the relevant documents of title of petitioner and that suit property has not properly been identified. That report was remitted and property was measured with assistance of the Taluk Surveyor. Commissioner submitted his report and plan. Then came I.A.No.485 of 2009 at the instance of petitioner to set aside the said report and plan. There, objection raised is that Advocate Commissioner has not taken into consideration documents relating to the acquisition of land and instead, has wrongly stated land acquired was from the suit property. Learned Munsiff refused to remit the report and plan a second time and dismissed the application. It is contended by learned counsel that report and plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner are not correct and requires remission. Petitioner has produced certified photocopy of notice of award dated 21-01-1969 and plan Advocate Commissioner has submitted after the second inspection.

(2.) AS per notice of award it would appear that 0.224 hectors in survey 166/2B was acquired from one Cheriya Yezhuvath Kunhukutty Amma and petitioner. Similarly another 0.610 hectors was acquired from eight persons including petitioner. In the plan prepared by Advocate Commissioner, plot No.5 is the property stated to be in the possession of petitioner extending to 1.92 acres and on its immediate west is plot No.7, panchayath road having an extent of 25.75 cents. On the further west is plot No.3 which is 62.75 cents in extent and which petitioner claims is part of the suit property. Learned counsel has stated that even if the panchayath road is excluded from consideration petitioner is entitled to have more than the 1.92 acres as reported by the Advocate Commissioner and shown as plot No.5 in the plaint.