M APPA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ext. P1 order produced along with the writ petition, the Land Tribunal, Kanhangad disposed of two Original Applications, O.A Nos. 496 and 506 of 1971. O A. No. 496 of 1971 was filed by one Appa and the other Original Application was filed by Appa's father Chirukandan. Both these applications were directed against the same landlord who is the 4th respondent in the Original Petition. The said applications were for purchase of right, title and interest of the landlord invoking S.72B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Land Tribunal dismissed O.A. No. 496 of 1971 but allowed O.A. No. 506 of 1971. The landlord preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Cannanore against the decision allowing O. A. No. 506 of 1971. It is the case of the petitioner that Chirukandan, the applicant in O.A No. 506 of 1971 who was the respondent before the Appellate Authority, died pending the said appeal. The appellate authority's order proceeds on the basis that Chirukandan is still alive. Whatever that be, the appellate authority setting aside the decision in O.A No. 506 of 1971 remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision as per its order dated 6-6-1980.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by two sons of Chirukandan, Appa who filed O.A. No. 496 of 1971 and another who is the 2nd petitioner herein. The 5th respondent herein is, as averred by the petitioners, their brother who could not be made a petitioner in the writ petition. According to the averments contained in this writ petition Chirukandan is no more. It is on that basis that the petitioners impugn Ext. P2 remand order passed by the Appellate Authority on 6-6-1980 in these proceedings.

(3.) The question raised by the Office is whether each of the two petitioners should be directed to pay the necessary court fee as if each of them had filed a separate writ petition. According to the Office note R.147A of the Rules of the High Court or Kerala. 1971 governs the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that it is not so.