IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.No. 347 of 2004() --------------------- TLB.1470/1973/HOS of TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDRUG .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ LEGAL HEIRS OF CLAIMANT IN TLB --------------------------------------------------- 1. V.KUNHAMMAR, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.LATE KANNOTH VEETIL KUNHAMBU, SOORYODHAYAM, BALUR, BELUR VILLAGE, PARKALAI.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. B.RAGHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.LATE KANNOTH KUNHAMBU, SOORYODHAYAM, BALUR BELUR VILLAGE, PARKALAI.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK. KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. SHYAMALA, AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, D/O.LATE K.KUNHAMBU, KORAMTHODE HOUSE, AMBALATHARA VILLAGE, ECHIKANAM.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 4. SAVITHRI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. P.SREEDHARAN, D/O.K.KUNHAMBU, MULAVANOOR HOUSE, BELUR VILLAGE, 5. V.NARAYANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE KANNOTH VEETTIL KUNHAMBU, SOORYODHAYAM, BALUR, BELLUR VILLAGE, PARKALAI.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. OMANA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.P.M.KELU, D/O.K.KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT IRIYA HOUSE, PULLUR VILLAGE, IRIYA.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. RAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.K.KUNHAMBU, SOORYODHAYAM, BALUR, BELUR VILLAGE, PARKALAI.P.O., HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.THAMBAN SMT.T.SUDHAMANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, HOSDURG. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI M L SAJEEVAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.347 of 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of June, 2010 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 16-12-2003 of the Taluk Land Board, Hosdurg (for short, “the TLB”) in T.L.B.No.1470/73/HOS dismissing claim petition preferred by the original claimant under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the Act”). He claimed that declarant had given a wrong statement including a portion of 10 acres in R.S.127/1 which was in actual possession of the original claimant. He claimed that said portion originally belonged to Mulayannoor Bagavathi Devaswom and he purchased landlords rights in O.A.No.1090 of 1976 of the Land Tribunal, Kanhangad. The TLB was not inclined to accept that claim and dismissed petition by the impugned oder. Legal representatives of the original claimant have preferred this revision petition. They contend that the original claimant expired on 30-03-1994. They had preferred application to implead themselves in the proceedings in the TLB on 14-6-1994 but the impugned order was passed on 16-12-2003 without impleading or hearing them and with the dead claimant on the array of parties. Learned counsel contends that the award is nullity having been C.R.P.No.347 of 2004 : 2 : passed against a dead person. I have heard learned Government Pleader also. 2. It is not disputed before me that the original claimant expired on 30-03-1994 and though petitioners had filed application on 14-06-1994 for their impleadment that application was not disposed of, nor were petitioners heard before the TLB passed the impugned order. Learned Government Pleader contends that the counsel who was appearing for deceased original claimant continued to appear in the TLB till 08-11-2003 even after the death of original claimant. Assuming so, that was certainly not on behalf of petitioners since they were not impleaded in the proceeding and at any rate that does not cure the fatal defect of passing the order against a dead person. According to the learned Government Pleader, property has already been distributed among eligible persons. 3. The order as it stands is passed against a dead person and without his legal representatives brought on record. The order is therefore a nullity and for the said reason this revision petition also is not sustainable. The TLB has to re-open the case. Petitioners have to seek their impleadment in the proceeding. If any such application for reopening the proceeding is preferred by petitioners, the TLB shall pass appropriate orders on the said C.R.P.No.347 of 2004 : 3 : application as well as the application for impleadment and after hearing petitioners pass appropriate orders on the claim petition preferred by the deceased original claimant. With the above direction this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-