Applications submitted by the revision petitioner before the court below to declare that the common judgment in L.A.A.Nos.595 of 1992 and 603 of 1992 dated 23.5.2003 is a nullity in the eye of law and to drop further proceedings in L.A.R.Nos.44 of 1986 and 45 of 1986, were dismissed by the court below by the common order dated 31.8.2005, which is under challenge in these revisions.

2. Property belonging to seven persons was acquired for the purpose of establishing a 400 KV Sub Station for the Kerala State Electricity Board. Section 4(1) notification was issued on 7.10.1980 and award Nos.8 of 1984 and 9 of 1984 were passed on 6.10.1984. During the award enquiry, one of the co-owners, namely, K.M.Thomas died on 1.1.1984. The matter was referred to the Land Acquisition Court for determining the question of apportionment of compensation and also on the question of enhancement of compensation as the claimants filed applications for reference dissatisfied with the amount awarded. The cases were numbered as L.A.R.Nos.44 of 1986 and 45 of 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation on the basis of capitalization method. The claimants contended that the compensation calculated on the basis of capitalization method was improper and that it should have been based on land value and the value of timber. The Land Acquisition References were disposed of on 5.3.1991. The reference court held that capitalization method was not proper and the contention put forward by the claimants was accepted. The State filed L.A.A.No.595 of 1992 and 603 of 1992 before the High Court challenging the judgment and decree in the Land Acquisition Reference cases. The appeals were allowed in part and the matter was remanded to the reference court. However, the finding of the reference court in respect of land value was confirmed by the High Court. The Land Acquisition Court was directed to decide the matter afresh and to fix the compensation based on the probable quantity of timber, on the basis of the evidence already on record as well as on additional evidence. After remand, the parties appeared before the Land Acquisition Court and the proceedings are pending from 21.7.2003 onwards.

3. After remand, the revision petitioner got himself impleaded before the reference court as per the order in I.A.No.5731 of 2004 and 5732 of 2004. He claimed that he is one of the legal representatives of late K.M.George, who was one of the legal representatives of the deceased K.M.Thomas, a co- wner of the property. Thereafter, in 2005, the revision petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1234 of 2005 and 1236 of 2005 to drop the proceedings before the reference court on the ground that the decrees passed by the High Court in the Land Acquisition Appeals are void. The reference court negatived the contentions put forward by the revision petitioner and dismissed the applications.

4. The property in question belonged to seven persons, namely, K.M.Augustine, K.M.Thomas, K.M.Ignatious, Mrs.Tressyamma Joseph, Mrs.Annamma Chacko, Mrs.Mariamma Mathai and Mrs.Mary George (wife of K.M.George). Out of the seven co-owners, K.M.Thomas died on 1.1.1984 during the award proceedings. His legal representatives are K.M.Joseph, K. M.Chacko, K.M. Mathai, K.M. George, K.M.Augustine and K.M.Ignatious. K.M.George got himself impleaded before the reference court in his capacity as the legal representative of K.M.Thomas as per the order dated 10.10.1986. Subsequently, K.M.George died on 25.9.2000. The legal representatives of K.M.George are his widow Mary George and children K.G.Kuruvilla (revision petitioner), Mathew and Augustine. Mary George, one of the legal representatives of K.M.George was already in the party array, she being one among the seven persons to whom the property belonged. It is to be noted that some of the legal representatives of K.M.Thomas were already on the party array and the other legal representatives of K.M.Thomas got themselves impleaded in the proceedings before th