THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.No.1449 OF 1998 ORDER: When the matter came up for hearing on 7.8.2008 Sri N.Krishna Murthy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order was passed against a dead person and that, despite intimation in this regard even prior to the passing of the order, the order still came to be passed by the Joint Collector. Since none appeared for the respondents, the matter was posted today under the caption “for judgment”. Today also neither is the Government Pleader for Revenue nor the counsel for the unoﬃcial respondents present. There is no representation on their behalf either. In para 7 of the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that his father Siripurapu Nagaiah had died on 10.12.1995 when the revision was pending, that after service of the notice a memo was ﬁled on 10.12.1995 stating that Sri S.Nagaiah had died and that, despite such a memo being ﬁled, the respondent-revision petitioner did not bring the L.Rs. of his father on record. While the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the 4th respondent deals with all other aspects it is completely silent on this question. Along with the aﬃdavit of the petitioner, a copy of the said memo is also enclosed a perusal of which would indicate that the petitioner had ﬁled the memo before the Joint Collector on 12.12.1995 to the eﬀect that Sri Siripurapu Nagaiah died on 10.12.1995. In the absence of any denial of this averment in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the 4th respondent and, since no order can be passed against a person who is not alive on the date of the order, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________ 8-8-2008 asp