- (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the writ petitioners and is directed against the judgment and order dated February 10, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 310 of 2008 and the order in Review dated September 02, 2011 so merged in the order dated February 10, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Circuit Bench at Port Blair in the said writ petition. The following facts are not in dispute:-- (i) The petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging an order dated November 02, 2006 of the Deputy Commissioner and the appellate order dated January 25, 2008 in relation to the prayer of the writ petitioners for cash compensation or allocation of alternative land in lieu of land that had allegedly been resumed in 1956. (ii) While disposing of the said writ petition, the learned Single Judge has held that the order in question of the Deputy Commissioner was a reasoned one and the appellate forum had affirmed the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. There was no justification for interference in the said writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. (iii) Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioners preferred an appeal being MAT No. 35 of 2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court holding inter alia that if the appellants/writ petitioners filed any application for review, the learned Trial Judge should be at liberty to decide the same without being influenced by the order passed by the Division Bench and (iv) Accordingly, the petitioners filed an application for review being RVW No. 04 of 2011 which was dismissed by the order dated September 02, 2011. Thereafter, this mandamus appeal has been preferred.
(2.) Now, the question is whether the appeal should be allowed or not.
(3.) Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record we find that the question of maintainability of this appeal has arisen.;