IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1842 of 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.61/2002 IN LAR.49/2000 OF SUB COURT, MANJERI REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS 2 TO 12: CLAIMANTS B TO L: 1. FATHIMA, D/O.NADUVILTHODI KUNHIKADIYUMMA, MALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 2. AMINA, D/O.NADUVILTHODI KUNHIKADIYUMMA, MALAPPURAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. 3. ABOOBACKER, -DO- -DO- 4. KADEEJA, -DO- -DO- 5. SAINABA, -DO- -DO- 6. AYSHABI, -DO- -DO- 7. ABDUL AZEEZ, -DO- -DO- 8. ABDUL SALAM, -DO- -DO- 9. AHAMMED RASHEED, -DO- -DO- 10. VAHIDA, -DO- -DO- 11. KAMARUNNISSA, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT: THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENJAMIN PAUL. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 1842 OF 2003 ................................................................................... Dated this the 8th January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners herein filed application under Rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Land Acquisition Reference to implead them as additional claimants as legal representatives of the deceased claimant. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that no legal heirship certificate was produced by the petitioners . 2. Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that save in so far as they may be inconsistent with anything contained in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 shall apply to all proceedings before the Court under this Act. The question is whether the petitioners are bound to produce legal heirship certificate to enable them to apply for impleading them as additional claimants. I am of the view that the court below was not right in holding that the legal heirship certificate is necessary for the purpose of filing an application or in prosecuting an application under rule 2 or rule 3 or rule 4 of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure . In Joseph vs. Special Tahsildar ( 2007 (4) K.L.T. 840 ), I had occasion to consider the question of impleadment of legal representatives in Land Acquisition Reference case. It was held therein thus: “14. On consideration of the various views expressed by the High Courts and taking into account the statutory provisions, I am of the view that the following principles can be adopted, which, according to me, would be more suitable and would cause less inconvenience to the C.R.P. No. 1842 OF 2003 2 parties. (1) If the death of the claimant occurs before the reference is made certainly the duty is on the Land Acquisition Officer to make a reference showing the legal representatives of the deceased claimant as additional claimants. (2) If the death of the claimant occurs after the reference reaches the Court and before service of notice, the reference court shall address the Land Acquisition Officer to furnish details of the legal representatives of the deceased claimant and thereafter the L:and Acquisition Court shall issue notice to those legal representatives. (3) If the death of the claimant occurs after the claimant has received notice in the Land Acquisition Reference, the duty to come on record is on the legal representatives of the deceased and to that extent, the provisions of O.XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. (4) The provisions of O.XXII as regards abatement would not apply to Land Acquisition Reference. Since there could be no abatement, there is no question of there being delay in making the application for impleading. The question of condonation of delay, therefore, does not arise at all. (5) The provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or the Code of Civil Procedure do not cast any inhibition on the legal representatives of the deceased claimant for applying to bring them on record as additional claimants in the party array in the land acquisition proceedings. If such an application is filed by the legal representatives, nothing prevents the Land Acquisition Court in entertaining that application and impleading the legal representatives of the deceased with due notice to the Land Acquisition Officer. It is not necessary to refer the matter back to the Land Acquisition Officer for a report since the Land Acquisition Officer is already on the party array in the Land Acquisition Reference. Objection, if any, to such impleading could be raised by the respondent C.R.P. No. 1842 OF 2003 3 Land Acquisition Officer and the Court could consider the same on the merits. 3. Let us take the case where the person who made an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act dies before the reference is made. Is it necessary that the legal heirship certificate is produced by the legal representatives before the authority to make the reference?. The answer is certainly. The land acquisition authority is not bound to produce the legal heirship certificate in such a situation. Even in other situations, referred to in Joseph vs. Special Tahsildar, the land acquisition authority is not bound to produce the legal heirship certificate in order to make an application for impleading the legal representatives. The same principle must apply where the legal representatives apply to come on record as additional claimants. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, I set aside the order impugned . The court below shall dispose of the application afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk