(1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the Board of Revenue dated 29-10-1982 contained in Annexure '1' attached with the writ petition.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details it appears that the petitioners-appellants applied to the court for issuing notice to some of the respondents in the appeal on the allegations that they had become major during the pendency of the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, hence according to the rule of natural justice they should get notice of the pendency of this appeal and after serving notice to them the appeal be heard. The prayer of the petitioner-appellants was refused by the learned member Board of Revenue through his order dated 29-10-1982. as is evident from Annexure '1' attached with the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 29-10-1982 the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants has contended before me that the principle of natural justice requires that a person should be heard before any adverse order against him is passed. In such a circumstance if the appellants succeed the respondents who have become major during the pendency of the appeal will not be bound by the decision and the decision can be set at naught in no time hence it was necessary for the court to issue notice to the respondents who had become major during the pendency of the appeal. The impugned order is arbitrary and deserves to be quashed.