CHANDRAVATHI Vs. N SUBBAN SHIVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred by the fourth respondent in the writ petition filed by the first to sixth respondents. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 23rd September 2011 passed by the Land Tribunal. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge was passed on 19th March 2019. The second respondent in the appeal (second writ petitioner) had died on 11th August 2013. Moreover, the fifth respondent (fifth writ petitioner) had died on 25th April 2016. It is an admitted position that the legal representatives of both the said respondents were not brought on record before the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 pointed out that the first and third respondents were the legal representatives of the second respondent and, therefore, there is no abatement of the writ petition as far as the second respondent is concerned. As regards the fifth respondent, he pointed out that I.A.No.2/2019 has been preferred by the legal representatives of the fifth respondent in this appeal for bringing them on record. He submitted that the reasons for not bringing on record the legal representatives of the fifth respondent have been stated in the said application.

(3.) Thus, the impugned order has been passed in favour of the second and fifth respondents who were dead long back before the impugned order was passed. Strictly speaking, there may not be any abatement of the writ petition as far as the second respondent is concerned as her legal representatives were already on record in a different capacity. However, the legal representatives of the fifth respondent were not brought on record. The application made by the legal representatives of the fifth respondent shows that the fifth respondent had died on 25th April 2016 about three years before the date of the impugned order.