Kerala High Court
R.K.Ramakrishanan vs P.C. Moosa Haji on 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
LA.APP. NO.108 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2023 IN LAR NO.130 OF 2013
OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,
THALASSERY
APPELLANTS/CLAIMANT NOS.3, 7, 8, 9 & 10:
1 R.K.RAMAKRISHANAN
AGED 82 YEARS
S/O. RAYAROTH KOTHERI NARAYANAN NAMBIAR,
'ROJA NILAYAM' , ELAMPARA, EDAYANNUR.P.O,
KANNUR (DT), PIN - 670595
2 THANKAMANI.K.K
AGED 78 YEARS
W/O. R.K.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, RAYAROTH HOUSE,
ELAMPARA, KEEZHALLUR.P.O, THALASSERY,
KANNUR (DT), PIN - 670595
3 GEETHA.K.K
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. HAREENDRAN.M, 'THIRUVATHIRA' , THODIKKALAM
KANNAVAM, KANNAVAM.P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR (DT),
PIN - 670650
4 VIJAYAN.K.K
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. R.K.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, RAYAROTH HOUSE,
ELAMPARA, KEEZHALLUR. P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR
(DT), PIN - 670595
5 RAJEEVAN.K.K
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. R.K.PADMANABHAN NAMBIAR, RAYAROTH HOUSE,
ELAMPARA, KEEZHALLUR. P.O, THALASSERY, KANNUR
(DT), PIN - 670595
2
L.A.A.No.108 of 2023
BY ADVS.
CIBI THOMAS
LOHITHAKSHAN CHATHADI KANNOTH
RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT NOS.1, 4, 5 AND 6:
1 P.C. MOOSA HAJI
S/O. MAMMU HAJI, ZUM ZUM THERUR, EDAYANNUR.P.O,
KANNUR, PIN - 670595
2 GOVT. OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
3 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KINFRA, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
4 THE SPECIAL THAHSILDAR
LA, AIRPORT NO.II, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN - 670702
THIS LAND ACQUISITION APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
3
L.A.A.No.108 of 2023
'CR'
G.GIRISH, J.
---------------
L.A.A.No.108 of 2023
------------------------------
Dated this the 03rd day of May, 2024
-------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The issue involved in this appeal is the rival claims raised by
the appellants and the 1st respondent over an amount of
Rs.14,76,912/-, which the Land Acquisition Authorities deposited
before the Additional Sub Court at Thalassery (mentioned as
Reference Court hereafter, for convenience), in connection with
the acquisition of an extent of 0.4828 Hectors (119 cents)
comprised in Re-Survey No.27/3 of Keezhallur Village in
Thalassery Taluk, for the purpose of Kannur Airport.
2. An extent of 4 acres 92 cents of land comprised in
Re-Survey No.27/3 of Keezhallur Village, which belonged to the
1st respondent, was purchased directly by KINFRA, in connection
with the construction of Kannur Airport. However, a reference
under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short "L.A Act")
was made in respect of the compensation amount of 1 acre and
19 cents of land, which was said to be held by 1st respondent along
with the abovesaid 4 acre and 92 cents, for the reason that the 1st
respondent failed to produce title documents before the
Acquisition Authority to convince his right over the said property.
According to the 1st respondent, the abovesaid 1 acre and 19 cents
formed part of the total extent of 5 acres and 05 cents held by
him right from the year 1986. It is stated that the 1st respondent
holds a total extent of 6 acres 11 cents of land there, which exist
contiguously within well-defined boundaries. The split particulars
of derivation of title of the abovesaid 6 acres and 11 cents claimed
by the 1st respondent are as follows :
i. An extent of 5 acres and 5 cents was purchased by the 1st
respondent from the persons by name Abuthali and
Mammad by virtue of sale deed No.2260/1986 of SRO,
Mattannur. Though the extent of land mentioned in the
above sale deed was only 3 acres and 86 cents, the actual
extent which was handed over to the 1st respondent was 5
acres and 5 cents.
ii. An extent of 45 cents was purchased by the 1st respondent
by virtue of sale deed No.1023/1993 of SRO, Mattannur.
iii. An extent of 15 cents was purchased by the 1st respondent
by virtue of sale deed No.2270/1994 of SRO, Mattannur.
iv. An extent of 46 cents was purchased by the 1st respondent
by virtue of sale deed No.787/2007 of SRO, Mattannur.
3. According to the 1st respondent, the compensation
amount deposited by the acquisition authorities in respect of the
abovesaid 1 acre and 19 cents has to be given to him since the
above land has been remaining under his absolute title and
possession ever since 1986, when he purchased the 5 acre and
5 cents as stated in item No.i above.
4. The appellants strongly disputed the claim of the
1st respondent over the 1 acre and 19 cents, in respect of which
the acquisition authority, being unable to trace title, had deposited
the compensation amount before the Reference Court. The
appellants trace their right over the said property from the
partition decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of the Munsiff's Court,
Koothuparamba. According to the appellants, an extent of 4 acres
shown as 'D' plot in Plan V was allotted to defendant Nos.103 and
104 of the said suit, who are said to be the predecessors-in-
interest of the claimant No.2 and claimant No.3 in LAR No.130 of
2013 of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery (Reference Court).
Since claimant No.2 died during the pendency of the above
proceedings, additional claimants 7 to 10 were impleaded as his
legal representatives. The appellants herein are claimant No.3
and additional claimant Nos.7 to 10 in LAR No.130 of 2013 of the
Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. It is the further contention of
the appellants that in addition to the 4 acres obtained by their
predecessors, as per the partition decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947
of Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba, an extent of 1 acre and 5
cents of rocky land, named 'Pulpara', which abutted the abovesaid
4 acres on the west, also remained under their absolute title and
possession, as conveyed to them in the abovesaid partition
decree. The appellants would contend that an extent of 3 acres
and 86 cents, out of the abovesaid 4 acres of land, were sold to
the persons by name, Abuthali and Mammad by virtue of sale
deed No.823/1986. According to the appellants, it is the
abovesaid 3 acres and 86 cents alone, which Abuthali and
Mammad sold to the 1st respondent by virtue of sale deed
No.2260/1986. It is the further contention of the appellants that
they are having ownership and possession over another extent of
1 acre and 42 cents, and thus, out of the total extent of 6 acres
and 47 cents of land, the portion excluding 3.86 acres sold to
Abuthali and Mammad remained under their absolute possession
and enjoyment with well-defined boundaries. The disputed 1 acre
and 19 cents involved in this case, according to the appellants,
formed part and parcel of the abovesaid 2 acres and 61 cents,
which remained under the title and possession of appellants after
the sale of 3.86 acres to Abuthali and Mammad. It is the case of
the appellants that the 3 acres and 86 cents purchased by the 1st
respondent does not take in the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents, and
that it exist separately. Upon the above premises, the appellants
stake claim to have the compensation amount of Rs.14,76,912/-
deposited by the acquisition authority in connection with the
acquisition of the aforesaid 1 acre and 19 cents.
5. In a Commission Application filed by the claimant
(1st respondent), as I.A.No.1357 of 2015, the Reference Court
appointed an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of
Village Officer, Keezhallur to conduct a local investigation in the
disputed property and to prepare a report and plan. In the above
Commission Application, the Advocate Commissioner was
required to ascertain the location, nature and lie of the acquired
property with the nature of boundaries. The Commissioner was
also requested to measure the acquired property and the property
which was purchased directly by KINFRA from the claimants, and
to prepare a plan on the basis of individual sketches prepared by
the land acquisition authority, and Field Measurement Book
available at Keezhallur Village Office.
6. The learned Advocate Commissioner prepared an
undated, cryptic one page report and filed the same, along with a
sketch which does not contain the requisite particulars of a
measured plan. The abovesaid Commission Report and plan have
been marked, in the trial before the Reference Court, as Exts.X1
and X2. The Commissioner reported in Ext.X1 that she identified
the properties as per possession and as per the boundaries of the
properties. However, at the time of examination before the
Reference Court, the Advocate Commissioner had testified as AW4
that Ext.X2 Plan was prepared on the basis of the plans produced
by the Land Acquisition Authorities, land documents and
boundaries.
7. Long before the examination of the Advocate
Commissioner before the Reference Court, the appellants had filed
I.A.No.534 of 2017 with a prayer to remit the above Commission
Report and plan to the Advocate Commissioner with a direction to
furnish fresh Commission Report and Plan, as per Field
Measurement Book and the approved Commission Report in
O.S.No.247 of 1947 of Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba. The
above I.A was disposed of by the Reference Court with the
observation that the question of remittance of the Commission
Report could be considered, after taking evidence in the case. The
said order of the Reference Court was challenged by the
appellants by filing O.P(C)No.89 of 2019 before this Court. As per
order dated 19.02.2019, this Court set aside the order of the
Reference Court dated 01.06.2018 in I.A.No.534 of 2017 and
directed the said court to pass fresh orders in the said application
with the observation that it is required to be ascertained whether
the acquired property falls within the portion allotted to the
original claimants or the additional claimants, as per the final
decree for partition in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of the Munsiff's Court,
Koothuparamba. This Court also stated in the aforesaid order that
the properties are to be identified based on the plan attached to
the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947, and that the above aspects
have not been correctly placed before the Reference Court.
Accordingly, the Reference Court was directed to consider the
aforesaid aspects and pass fresh orders in I.A.No.534 of 2017,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of that judgment.
8. Notwithstanding the specific directions of this Court in
the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2019, the Reference Court again
relegated the adjudication on the challenge against the
acceptability of the Commission Report and plan to the final stage
of trial of the L.A.R case, as per order dated 10.04.2019,
dismissing I.A.No.534 of 2017. Again the matter was taken up
before this Court in O.P(C)No.1616 of 2019, challenging the order
of dismissal of I.A.No.534 of 2017. In the judgment dated
18.06.2019 in the aforesaid O.P., this Court observed that the plan
attached to the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 was not
produced before the Reference Court, and hence the said court
could not have passed order directing the Advocate Commissioner
to conduct fresh local inspection for identifying the property on
the basis of the plan attached to the decree in the said suit.
However, while dismissing the above O.P., this Court provided an
option to the appellants to produce the above plan, along with
fresh application for remittance of the Commission Report.
Accordingly, the appellants filed I.A.No.1527 of 2019 with the
relevant plan before the Reference Court, seeking remission of the
Commission Report. But the above application was also dismissed
by the Reference Court with the observation that the right of the
appellants to seek remission of the Commission Report and plan
would be reserved to the stage after the completion of evidence,
and that, if found necessary, the report and plan could be remitted
back at that stage. The appellants challenged the above order
before this Court by filing O.P(C)No.36 of 2020. The above
Original Petition was disposed of by this Court, as per the
judgment dated 09.01.2020, in which this Court reposed
confidence upon the Reference Court that the said Court, during
the course of trial, will consider the question of remission, taking
due note of the earlier judgments of this Court in O.P(C)No.89 of
2019 and O.P(C)No.1616 of 2019.
9. In the present appeal, the grievance of the appellants
is that the Reference Court had totally ignored the observations
of this Court in O.P(C)No.89 of 2019, O.P(C)No.1616 of 2019 and
O.P(C)No.36 of 2020 and disposed of L.A.R.No.130 of 2013,
relying on Exts.X1 and X2 Commission Report and plan, which
were erroneously prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. The
appellants would allege that the Reference Court decided the
L.A.R in favour of the 1st respondent upon the false notion that
the appellants have not produced documents evidencing their title
over the disputed property. It is stated that, apart from the
erroneous findings of the Advocate Commissioner in Exts.X1 and
X2 and the wrong entries in the revenue records, which the 1 st
respondent managed to incorporate by way of manipulations,
there was absolutely no reliable material to establish the right of
the 1st respondent over the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents of land.
Upon the above grounds, the appellants seek to set aside the
judgment and decree dated 19.08.2023 in L.A.R.No.130 of 2013
of the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned
Government Pleader representing respondents 2 to 4.
11. The point to be decided is whether there are sufficient
grounds to interfere with the impugned decree and judgment
rendered by the Reference Court on 19.08.2023 in L.A.R.No.130
of 2013.
12. Neither the appellants nor the 1st respondent are in a
position to produce any title document, which would precisely
show their right over the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents of land,
which is the bone of contention in this case. It is contended by
the 1st respondent that the property conveyed to him by Abuthali
and Mammad by virtue of sale deed No.2260/1986 of SRO,
Mattannur was having an actual extent of 5 acres and 5 cents,
which exceeds by 1 acre and 19 cents from the actual extent of 3
acres and 86 cents mentioned in that document. According to the
1st respondent, it is for the abovesaid 1 acre and 19 cents that the
Acquisition Authority deposited compensation amount before the
Reference Court, alleging that the 1st respondent was not having
title document establishing his right over that property. The
appellants, per contra, would contend that Abuthali and Mammad,
who are the vendors of the 1st respondent, did not get even an
inch of land exceeding the 3 acres and 86 cents sold to them by
the predecessors of the appellants by virtue of sale deed
No.823/1986 of SRO, Mattannur. The abovesaid 3 acres and 86
cents sold to Abuthali and Mammad by virtue of sale deed
No.823/1986 is said to be the major portion of the 4 acres, which
the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants obtained as 'D' plot
in plan V in the final decree passed in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of
Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba. Thus, according to the
appellants, the 1st respondent cannot stake claim over any land,
which Abuthali and Mammad, his predecessors-in-interest, had
not obtained. It is upon the above premises that the appellants
stake claim over the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents of land which,
according to them, is inclusive of the remaining 14 cents out of
the 4 acres obtained by the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947,
and the adjoining rocky land having an extent of 1 acre and 5
cents.
13. Having regard to the nature of the rival contentions
raised by the parties in the above regard, it is inevitable for the
conclusive resolution of the dispute that the properties obtained
by the appellants, as per the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947
of the Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba, and the properties
obtained by the 1st respondent by virtue of the sale deeds with
numbers 2260/1986, 1023/1993, 2270/1994 and 787/2007 of
SRO, Mattannur, are to be identified and located on the basis of
the relevant Field Measurement Book and the relevant plan
forming part of the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of the
Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba. It is obviously for the said
reason that this Court rendered the judgment dated 19.02.2019
in O.P(C)No.89 of 2019, directing the Reference Court to consider
the aspects relating to ascertaining and identifying the properties
on the basis of the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of Munsiff's
Court, Koothuparamba. The need to follow the above course has
been reiterated by this Court in the judgment dated 18.06.2019
in O.P(C)No.1616 of 2019 providing an opportunity to the
appellants herein to furnish the relevant plan of the final decree
in O.S.No.247 of 1947 before the Reference Court and to seek
compliance of the direction in the judgment rendered in
O.P(C)No.89 of 2019. Though the appellants approached the
Reference Court with the relevant plan and sought the remission
of EXt.X1 Commission Report and Ext.X2 plan, the Reference
Court, conveniently and with ease, evaded from looking into the
question of remission of the Commission Report and Plan, with
the observation that the said aspect would be taken care of, after
the completion of evidence in the L.A.R case. When the appellants
challenged the above order of the Reference Court by filing
O.P(C)No.36 of 2020 before this Court, the above matter was
disposed of by the judgment dated 09.01.2020, reposing
confidence upon the Reference Court with the belief that the said
Court would honour its commitment expressed in the impugned
order that the issue relating to remission of the Commission
Report and Plan would be looked into after the entire evidence is
over. But, unfortunately, the Reference Court did not care to
consider the above aspect, and instead, disposed of the L.A.R in
favour of the 1st respondent, finding fault with the appellants for
their failure to produce title documents to establish their right
over the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents of land. It is an irony that
while blaming the appellants for their failure to produce title
documents, the Reference Court lost sight of the absence of any
such document produced by the 1st respondent to establish his
right over the abovesaid 1 acre and 19 cents of land.
14. It appears from the impugned judgment of the
Reference Court that the said court placed heavy reliance upon
the boundary descriptions in the sale deed executed by the
abovesaid Abuthali and Mammad in favour of the 1st respondent,
as well as the sale deed executed by the predecessors-in-interest
of the appellants in favour of Abuthali and Mammad, and found
that property exceeding the extent of 3 acres and 86 cents
mentioned in the relevant sale deeds might have been conveyed
to the vendees concerned since there was no indication of the
existence of the remaining land of the vendors in the boundary
description of the said sale deeds. In addition to the above
assumption, the Reference Court relied on the Commission Report
and plan marked as Exts.X1 and X2 to arrive at the finding that
the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents of land involved in the case
actually belonged to the 1st respondent.
15. It has to be stated that the course adopted by the
Reference Court in the above regard is per se erroneous. The
mere fact that the Document Writer, who prepared the sale deed
concerned, omitted to mention the existence of the remaining
land of the vendor in the boundary descriptions of the title deed,
ought not have been relied on by the Reference Court as a
circumstance to arrive at the finding that property exceeding the
extent mentioned in that sale deed might have been conveyed by
the vendor to the vendee. So also, the Reference Court
apparently went wrong in relying on Ext.X1 Commission Report
and Ext.X2 plan, which lacked the basic requirements, which are
expected to contain in a Commission Report and plan. It is not
possible to understand from the above records how the Village
Officer proceeded with the measurement of the properties
concerned and located the disputed 1 acre and 19 cents and the
remaining land purchased by KINFRA, as shown in Ext.X2.
Neither Ext.X1 report nor Ext.X2 Plan contain any indication as to
the relevant land record relied on by the Advocate Commissioner
and the Village Officer for locating the property, taking the
measurements and for preparation of the said plan. It appears
that Ext.X2 Plan has been prepared by simply copying some other
sketch procured by the Village Officer. Needless to say that Ext.X2
plan is worth not even the value of the paper in which it is drawn.
The Reference Court committed serious error in eschewing the
request of the appellants for remission of the above Commission
Report and plan, notwithstanding repeated directions of this Court
in the judgments in O.P(C)No.89 of 2019, O.P(C)No.1616 of 2019
and O.P(C)No.36 of 2020 to consider and decide the above
challenge. As already stated above, it was not possible to have a
fair resolution of the dispute involved in this case, without
ascertaining and locating the properties which the appellants
claimed on the basis of the final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of
the Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba, and those properties which
the 1st respondent claimed on the basis of sale deed
Nos.2260/1986, 1023/1993, 2270/1994 and 787/2007 of SRO,
Mattannur. The failure of the Reference Court to move in the
above direction happened only because of the course adopted by
the said court relegating the challenge against Ext.X1 Commission
Report and Ext.X2 plan to the final stage of the litigation, after
the completion of evidence.
16. Order XXVI Rule 10 sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil
Procedure deals with the evidence of the Commission Report filed
in a case and the examination of the Advocate Commissioner in
respect of the matters referred to him, or mentioned in his report.
Sub-rule (3) of Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure
deals with the direction for further enquiry to be made by the
Advocate Commissioner, if the Court gets dissatisfied with the
proceedings of the Advocate Commissioner. For the sake of
convenience and easy reference, the above provisions are
extracted hereinbelow:
"10. Procedure of Commissioner
(1) xxx
(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit-
The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by
him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be
evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the
court or, with the permission of the court, any of the parties
to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in
open court touching any of the matters referred to him or
mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the
manner in which he has made the investigation.
(3) Commissioner may be examined in person-
Where the court is for any reason dissatisfied with the
proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct such further
inquiry to be made as it shall think fit."
17. It is to be noted that the aforesaid provision does not
prescribe the stage of the suit at which the examination of the
Advocate Commissioner has to be conducted towards evaluating
the acceptability of the Commission Report and plan prepared by
him. When a party to the litigation moves an application
challenging the acceptability of the Commission Report and plan,
it is incumbent upon the court concerned to proceed with the
enquiry on that matter by the examination of the Advocate
Commissioner and any other person, who assisted him in the
preparation of the report and plan, and to arrive at a finding as to
whether the above records are worth to be taken as evidence in
the suit, and part of the case records. The practice followed by
many courts relegating the challenge against the Commission
Report and plan to the final stage of evidence in the suit, would
result in tricky situations causing hardships to the parties and
inconvenience to the court itself. This is because of the fact that,
if the Commission Report is found to be unworthy at the final stage
of the litigation, at a time when the court is all set for the disposal
of the suit after the completion of all other evidence, the remission
of the Commission Report to the Advocate Commissioner for
further enquiry at that stage, would complicate the matter and
result in abrupt procrastination of the proceedings. The above
precarious situation may compel, at least a small minority of the
Presiding Officers, to ignore the fallacies and errors in the
Commission Report for the sake of a disposal of the suit. For
avoiding the above unhealthy trend and practice of compromising
the grave errors and anomalies in the Commission Report, and
declining further enquiry in the matter, it is highly necessary to
proceed with the enquiry relating to the acceptability of the
Commission Report forthwith, once an application is filed by any
of the parties in that regard. Therefore, the Trial Courts are
expected to decide the issue regarding the acceptability of the
Commission Report before proceeding with the trial of the suit, if
any of the parties have moved an application challenging the
Commission Report and Plan.
18. As far as the present case is concerned, the impugned
decree and judgment rendered by the Reference Court, cannot be
permitted to survive in view of the fact that the Trial Court did not
take any effort to have the relevant materials procured for an
effective and comprehensive adjudication of the issue involved.
Needless to say that the decree and judgment under challenge
are liable to be set aside, and the matter remanded back to the
Reference Court for fresh disposal, after getting a foolproof
Commission Report and plan, identifying and locating the
properties in dispute on the basis of relevant records.
In the result, the appeal stands allowed as follows:
(i) The judgment and decree dated 19.08.2023 of
the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery in
L.A.R.No.130 of 2013 are hereby set aside and
the case is remanded back to the said court for
fresh disposal.
(ii) Ext.X1 Commission Report and Ext.X2 Plan are
ordered to be remitted back to the Advocate
Commissioner for further enquiry. The
Advocate Commissioner, with the assistance of
a competent Surveyor, shall proceed with the
task of identifying the disputed acquired
property as well as the larger extent of land in
which the disputed property forms part, on the
basis of the relevant plan forming part of the
final decree in O.S.No.247 of 1947 of the
Munsiff's Court, Koothuparamba, the title deeds
relied on by the parties and the relevant land
records.
(iii) The Commission batta and Surveyor's batta are
to be met by the appellants.
(iv) The learned Sub Judge shall make every
endeavour to expedite the proceedings, and
dispose of L.A.R afresh, after getting the further
report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner,
and examining the Advocate Commissioner and
Surveyor, upon the matters mentioned in the
report and plan.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH, JUDGE
vgd
