The right to resume land under S.16 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act survives to the legal representatives of the deceased applicant but not to the transferees-in-interest.

1. The property in question belonged to one Kathirkutty. The said Kathirkutty had filed an application O.A. 356/63, before the Lard Tribunal, Moovattupuzha, under S.16 and 17 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act for resumption of land for personal cultivation from the respondents herein. Kathirkutty died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal. In the meantime Kathirkutty had transferred his interests in the property to the respondents herein, as is seen from the gift deed, dated 17-1-1967 (Ext.A2). On the death of Kathirkutty, the respondents filed IA No. 52/67 in OA 356/65 seeking an order impleading them as the additional applicants enabling them to prosecute the proceedings, OA. 356/65. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. Some of the contentions raised by the petitioner are. that the gift deed is not valid, that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased applicant and that the right of resumption under S.16,17 is a personal right and hence the same will not survive even to legal representatives. After considering the various aspects of these contentions the Land Tribunal held thus:

"These two questions cannot be properly adjudicated in this interlocutory application. I am leaving the question regarding the validity of the gift deed open. So also the question whether the right of the applicant would survive to his legal representatives is also left open. The respondent will be at liberty to agitate this question by filing an additional written statement if he so chooses.

With the above reservations this interlocutory application is allowed and petitioners are impleaded as applicants 2 to 4".

That is how the petitioners became parties to the OA 356/65 mentioned above.

2. The Land Tribunal dismissed the petition. The petitioners there-upon filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The Land Tribunal, after considering the various contentions raised by the parties allowed the application. The said order was challenged before this Court, as is seen from OP 2020 of 1974.

3. This court disposed of the Original Petition entering the following findings:

"One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority proceeded to consider the issue as though respondents 1 to 3 agitated their cause as legal representatives of deceased Kathirkutty, the original petitioner. As a matter of fact that is not true. Even respondents 1 to 3 have no case that they constitute or exhaust the legal representatives of the deceased. Apparently one among them who is the son of the surviving son cannot at all be considered as the legal representative during the life time of his father. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has fairly conceded that he has no case that respondents 1 to 3 sought to pursue the proceedings in their capacity as the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, but only as the transferees - in-interest of the original petitioner in favour of those persons is not a matter considered either by the Tribunal or the Appellate Authority. That being the position. I do not think that Exts. P1, P2 and P11 orders and judgment could be sustained. The proper course for the Tribunal would be to consider whether, after the death of Kathirkutty, the original petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 who got themselves Impleaded as petitioners 2 to 4 in the proceedings before the Tribunal, would be able to continue the matter on the ground that they are entitled to seek resumption. In order to enable "the Tribunal to do this Exts.P1. P2 and P11 orders and judgment are quashed".

4. This court accordingly quashed the orders under challenge. Not only that, this court issued a further direction, which reads:

"In view of the specific allegation made in Para.16,18 and 21 of the objections filed by the petitioner I think that the Tribunal should go into the quest