IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 16048 of 2004(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.ABBAS BEARY, S/O. ANDU BEARY, RESIDING AT MEYYALA, DELAMPADY VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT), KASARAGOD. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD. 3. THE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SRI.MOHAMMED BEARY, S/O. MOOSA BEARY, RESIDING AT MEYYALA, DELAMPADY VILLAGE & POST, VIA. MULLERIA, KASARAGOD TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL FOR R1TO3 SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD FOR R4 SRI.D.NARENDRANATH FOR R4 SRI.M.HARISHARMA FOR R4 SRI.T.P.ELDHOSE FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.84 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ;APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN A.A. NO. 166/1984 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.12.1984 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN A.A. NO.166 OF 1984 DATED 27.10.2001 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 16.4.2004 4TH RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(a) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 24.4.1950 BEARING NO. 245/1950 OF THE SULLIA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXT.R4(b) TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 24.4.1950 BEARING NO.246/1950 OF THE SULLIA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXT.R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.1966 BEARING NO. 15197/58-59 EXT.R4(d) TRUE COPY OF PATTA DATED 6.9.1966 BEARING NO. DR. 15197/58-59 TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 16048 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Counsel who filed the WPC reported that petitioner is no more. However, it is seen that before the Adalat, petitioner's son represented the matter, and since there was no possibility of any settlement between the parties, the matter was sent back to this Court for hearing. Of course, if the petitioner is dead counsel cannot represent and argue the matter. In the impugned order, the finding is that the property was assigned to the fourth respondent way back in 1966 and therefore there was no scope for fresh enquiry for considering the claim of the petitioner in the WPC who is no more. It is not known whether petitioner leaves behind any other legal heir and such legal heir is claiming for the very same property, which the Commissioner found was assigned in favour of the fourth respondent and held by him since 1966. In the circumstances, WPC is closed as abated leaving freedom to the son or any other legal heir to challenge the impugned order, if they so desire. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 2