R.RANGANATHAN Vs. L.VENKATAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was originally allowed on 28.7.2009 by a Division Bench of this Court, speaking through one of us (Justice Elipe Dharma Rao). Aggrieved against the said order of this Court, Tmt. Vasanthamani (R. 7 & R. 24), wife of the deceased first respondent Mr. L. Venkatapathy, preferred SLP (civil) Nos. 1008-1010 of 2011 (later converted as Civil Appeal Nos. 4393-4395 of 2012) before the Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court, by the order dated 9.5.2012, set aside the order of this Court on the ground that the same had been passed against a dead person and remitted the matter back to this Court for fresh disposal. We extract hereunder the said part of the order of the Honourable Apex Court:

(2.) While the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent, were brought on record as respondents 24 to 26 at the instance of the writ petitioners, the widow of the deceased first respondent by name V. Vasanthamani (R. 24) has also filed a petition to substitute her in the place of her deceased husband/first respondent and the same having been ordered, she is also figuring as respondent No. 7.

(3.) During pendency of the writ petition, after remand, the respondents 4 to 6 have filed a petition in WPMP. No. 264 of 2012, stating that they are the owners of an extent of Ac. 2.18 in S. No. 284 of Uppilipalayam village, which was offered as an alternate land by the deceased first respondent along with other lands belonging to the Government in S. No. 118/4B and 123/2A admeasuring Ac. 1.39 in Karunkulam village, which is classified as 'Eri Poramboke' land (Tank) before the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and the said Tribunal, by the order dated 31.8.1995 accepted the said offer of the deceased first respondent and declared the said lands as 'surplus' lands instead of the earlier lands which were declared as surplus and assigned to the writ petitioners. These respondents have filed I.A. Nos. 11 to 13 of 2011 in the above said S.L.P. Nos. 1008 to 1010 of 2011, praying to implead them as parties and the Honourable Apex Court, by the order dated 9.3.2012, while remitting the matter to this Court has granted liberty to them to apply to the High Court for addition as party respondents and thus, these respondents have filed the petition in WPMP. No. 264 of 2012 praying to implead them as party respondents and having allowed the said petition on 13.8.2012 by this Court, they were brought on record as respondents 4 to 6. Immediately, R. 7/widow of the deceased first respondent (land owner) has filed a petition in WPMP. No. 344 of 2012 praying to recall the order of this Court dated 13.8.2012 passed in the above WPMP. No. 264 of 2012 (bringing on record Respondents 4 to 6), stating that the said impleaded parties have not made her a party to the said impleadment petition. We, by the order dated 16.10.2012, dismissed the said petition on the ground that we were of the considered view that all parties concerned with the lis should be given opportunity to put forth their claims so as to render a binding judgment.