IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 740 of 2009(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. KARTHIAYANI,AGED 57, D/O.LATE SRI,THEVAN KATTATHARA HOUSE, MARADU, ERNAKULAM 2. KAUSALYA, AGED 47, D/O.LATE SRI.THEVAN DO..DO... 3. ASHALATHA, AGED 35, D/O.LATE SRI.THEVAN DO..DO... BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RADHAKRISHNAN SMT.K.L.SREEDEVI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 2. THE SPECIAL THAHASILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL TRIPUNITHURA. 3. KARTHIAYANI, AGED 67, W/O.LATE SRI, THEVAN, KATTATHARA HOUSE MARADU, ERNAKULAM. 4. ASOKAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI.THEVAN, KATTATHARA HOUSE MARADU, ERNAKULAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 740 OF 2009 (K) ==================== Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The controversy in this writ petition relates to the proceedings in SMP No.72/94 stated to be pending before the 2nd respondent. 2. According to the petitioners, they are also the legal representatives of late Sri.Thevan, who, they say, was the cultivating tenant in possession of 1.50 acres of land in Sy.No.1112/3 of Maradu Village. It is stated that in the aforesaid proceedings, patta is going to be issued in favour of respondents 3 and 4 on the presumption that they alone are the legal heirs of the deceased. It is stated that they also being the legal heirs of the deceased, petitioners are also entitled to similar rights whatever respondents 3 and 4 have. Urging this claim, petitioners state that they have filed IA 45/07, a copy of which is Ext.P4 before the 2nd respondent, seeking to get themselves impleaded in the proceedings. Orders have not been passed and it is with that grievance the writ petition is filed. 3. Taking into account this grievance, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 with notice to respondents 3 and 4 also and pass final orders on the WPC 740/09 :2 : application for impleading. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced on the merits of the claim raised by the petitioners and it is entirely for the 2nd respondent to consider the same. 4. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp