The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer and the court in impleading legal heirs of a deceased claimant, emphasizing adherence to the legal procedure under Order 22 Rule 4-A of CPC.

1. Inveighing the order dated 2.7.2009 in I.A.No.59 of 2009 in LAOP No.62 of 1998 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet, this Civil Revision Petition is focused.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Advocate appearing for Respondents 1 & 13 and the learned Counsel appearing for the other Respondents.

3. A ‘resume’ of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:

The First Respondent/The Special Tahsildar (ADW), Pollachi referred the matter under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Court for adjudicating the claims made by the persons for enhancement of the compensation. During the pendency of the proceedings one of the Claimants died. But the Land Acquisition Officer did not take any steps to get the legal heirs of the deceased Claimant impleaded. Whereupon, the Court closed the LAOP. Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner herein, who also happened to be one of the Claimants filed I.A. No.59 of 2009 for re-opening the matter and to proceed with the claim. However, the lower Court passed the following order:

“2.7.2009 – This Petition is filed by one of the Claimant to the reference to restore the Land Acquisition Original Petition which was closed on 13.11.2008. The reference was made by the Government for apportionment of the claim. Since some of the Respondent/Claimants are reported, the Court adjourned the case so many times. In spite of giving extension of time, the Government did not take any steps by impleading the necessary Lrs. Both sides are not at all interested to conduct the case sincerely. The case was already dismissed in the year 2004 and restored in the year 2008. So there is no purpose in restoring the LAOP on the Application of one of the Claimant. The Government alone must take necessary steps to restore this Petition by impleading necessary LRs. Hence, this Petition is dismissed.

Sd/- xxxxxxxxxxxxx

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this Revision has been filed on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

The lower Court was not justified in dismissing the I.A. on the ground cited therein and accordingly, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/13th Respondent prays for setting aside the order of the lower Court for allowing the said Application and direct the lower Court to take up the matter and deal with it as per law.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether the order of the lower Court suffers from any illegality or impropriety?

6. No doubt, it appears that one of the Claimants died and the legal heirs were not brought on record. The core question arises, in such circumstances, as to what the Court should have done?

7. I recollect and call up the decision of mine dated 29.7.2008 in S.K. Anwerjan v. C. Leelavathi and others, A.S.No.359 of 1993 and certain excerpts from it would run thus:

“10… (i) Bangali Singh and another v. Ramanuj Sharma, 2001 (4) C.L.J.209 – An excerpt from the decision would run thus:

“5. …In this connection I am to refer to Order 22, Rule 4-A, CPC, where it has been laid down that if, in any Suit it shall appear to the Court that there is no legal representative of the party who died during the pendency of the Suit, the Court may on the Application of any party to the Suit proceed in absence of a person representing the state of the deceased person, or may by order appoint the Administrator-General, or an officer of the Court of such other person as it thinks fit to represent the estate of the deceased person or order subsequently given or made in the Suit shall bind the estate of the deceased person to the same extent as he would have been bound if a personal representative of the deceased person had been a party to the Suit. This Rule was added by amending Act 104 of 1976. The aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear that a Suit may be allowed to proceed even in the absence of the deceased Plaintiff of De