Telangana High Court

Danunjaya Rao, vs The Joint Collector on 24 September, 2021

Bench: T.Amarnath Goud

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SEETHARAMA MURTI

               C.R.P Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011


COMMON ORDER:


      C.R.P.no.2647 of 2013, under Section 91 of the A.P. Telangana Area

(Tenancy & Agricultural Lands) Act, 1950, (hereinafter, 'Act of 1950') is filed by

the petitioner-Dhanunjaya Rao, having been aggrieved of the order, dated

27.04.2013, in Appeal Case No.F1/08/2012 in File No.F1/5282/2012 on the file

of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, i.e., the 1st respondent herein.

1.1 C.R.P.no.1372 of 2015, under Section 91 of Act of 1950, is filed by the

unsuccessful appellants, namely, Laxminarayana and Gopal, assailing the order,

dated 12.08.2011, passed in Case No.F1/IA-3/2010 in File No.F1/2000/2010 on

the file of the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, whereby, while dismissing the

said appeal, the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, observed as follows: "The

respondents in the said appeal, i.e., Kavarampeta Kashanna and five others are

the 38-E certificate holders, as per the previous orders and the documents

relied upon by the said respondents. Hence, the respondents are declared as

pattedars by virtue of orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mahabubnagar."

1.2 C.R.P.no.5588 of 2011, under Section 91 of Act of 1950, is filed by

M/s. Gayatri Educational Society assailing the order, dated 12.08.2011, of the

Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, i.e., the 7th respondent in this revision petition

passed in case No.F1/IA-03/2010 in File No.F1/2000/2010.

2. To begin with, it is to be noted that the latter two revision petitions

mentioned at paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 supra are filed by the subsequent

purchasers of the subject land; and, in the said two revision petitions, the

challenge is to the same order passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, in 2 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

the aforestated appeal. Whereas in the 1st mentioned revision petition, the

challenge is to the order, dated 27.04.2013, of the very same Joint Collector,

Mahabubnagar, passed in Appeal Case No.F1/08/2012 in File No.F1/5282/2012.

The said appeal was filed having been aggrieved of the Memo No.K/7722/2012,

dated 26.10.2012, of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, rejecting

the claim of the appellant/revision petitioner in C.R.P.no.2647 of 2013, i.e.,

Dhanunjaya Rao, to consider the review petition filed against the order, dated

02.03.2010, in File No.K/576/2009, of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Mahabubnagar, with respect to confirmation of ownership rights in respect of

land in Sy.Nos.251/2 of an extent of Ac.30.00 situated within the limits of

Seripally (V) of Bhoothpur (M).

3. I have heard the submissions of Sri L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, for respondents

1 and 2, Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 &

6, and of Sri S.Sriram, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri K.Muralidhar

Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9 in C.R.P.no.2647 of 2013.

I have also heard the submissions of Sri M.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent,

and of Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 in

C.R.P.No.1372 of 2015. Submissions of Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Sri V.Manohar Rao, learned counsel appearing for

respondents 2 to 4, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for

respondents 7 to 9, and of Sri S.Sri Ram, learned senior counsel, appearing for

Sri K.Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.10 are

also heard in C.R.P.No.5588 of 2011.

3.1 I have perused the material record in all the three revisions. I have

perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the revision petitioners in

C.R.P.No.2647 of 2013 & C.R.P.No.1372 of 2015 and also the written synopsis 3 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

filed in C.R.P.no.5588 of 2011 and also the written submissions filed by the 9th

respondent in C.R.P.No.2647 of 2013, who is also the 10th respondent in

C.R.P.no.5588 of 2011. I have also gone through the decisions cited by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

4. The subject matter involved in all the three revisions is one and the

same. And, ultimately, the challenge in the revisions is to the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubnagar, dated 02.03.2010, in file

No.K/576/2009, which is eventually confirmed by the orders of the Joint

Collector. In view of the fact that the facts of the cases, contentions,

submissions and the principal issues that fall for consideration are one and the

same and as the issues are interlinked and as the finding on the issue/point

involved in one revision will have a bearing on the point/issue involved in the

other revision/s, submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides in all the

revision petitions are heard together and hence, all these revisions are being

disposed of by this common order.

5. In these revisions, there are two principal aspects. The first aspect is as

to whether the primary order, i.e., the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer

is a nullity as it was passed against the dead persons, i.e., L.Seshagiri Rao and

Suguna Bai, who died even before the said orders were passed by the learned

Revenue Divisional officer. The second aspect is the sustainability or otherwise

of the order impugned in each of these revisions on merits of the matter. It is

axiomatic that if this Court comes to the conclusion on the first aspect that the

primary or first order of the RDO, which is confirmed by the Joint Collector and

which is refused to be reviewed by the RDO at the request of the revision

petitioner in the 1st mentioned revision, is a nullity since passed against dead

persons, then there is no need to examine the merits of the matter as the

matter requires to be remitted to the RDO for fresh disposal on merits and in

strict accordance with the procedure established by law.

                                        4                                MSRM, J
                                                          C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013,
                                                      1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

6. The first question, therefore, that falls for consideration is - 'whether

the order of the RDO, Mahabubnagar, dated 02.03.2010, passed in File

No.K/576/2009 is a nullity, since passed against dead persons?'

6.1 To begin with, it is necessary to examine the cause title in the relevant

order of the Revenue Divisional officer passed in relevant proceeding. The

cause title reads as under:

"Between:

1. Kavarampeta Chinnaiah S/o Yellaiah died L.Rs K.Chennaiah died L.Rs.

(i) Kashanna

(ii)Venkataiah

(iii) Ramulu

(iv) Laxmaiah

2. K.Balaiah S/o Chinnaiah

3. K.Hanmanthu S/o Chinnaiah died L.R

(i) Smt. Yashoda (wife)

(Through Sri G.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Mahabubnagar)

II. 1.Dondlapally Pedda kashanna S/o late D.Bachanna died LR

(i) D.Venkataiah

2. D.China Kashanna S/o late D.Bachanna

3.Seripally Nimmala Hanmanthu S/o late Rangaiah died LR

(i) Seripally Nimmala Ramesh

4. Reddikunta Chennaiah S/o late Chandraiah died LR

(i) Reddikunta Ramulu

5. Smt. Chennamma W/o late Dondlapallty Kistaiah died LR

(i) Palamoor Narsimhulu (Grand Son)

6. Palamoor Chennaiah S/o Pullaiah died L.R

(i) Palamoor Narayana

7. Vaspula Balaiah S/o Pullaiah died LR

(i) Vaspula Venkataiah

All are R/o Seripally Village of Bhoothpur Mandal (Through Sri M.Atchutha Reddy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar)

And

1. Sri L.Seshagiri Rao S/o Jai Rao died LRs

(i) Dhanunjaya Rao (Son)

(ii) Jaya Rao (Son)

2. Smt. Suguna Bai W/o Venkat Rao died rep. By Lrs of respondent."

                                        5                                MSRM, J
                                                          C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013,
                                                      1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

Thus, the above cause title reflects that there are two sets of petitioners and

two answering respondents in the said proceeding on the file before the RDO.

It is fairly conceded before this Court that both the respondents in the said

proceeding, i.e., L.Seshagiri Rao and Suguna Bai, (hereinafter also referred to

for convenience as 'deceased respondents') died by the date the Revenue

Divisional Officer passed order, dated 02.03.2010, in the said proceeding in File

No.K/576/2009. The order also indicates that the said two respondents died

even before the said order was passed and that the said fact is to the

knowledge of the two sets of petitioners therein as well as the learned Revenue

Divisional Officer, who passed the order. It is also not disputed that the legal

representatives of either of the two respondents were not brought on record

during the pendency of the proceedings and before the order was passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer. Thus, neither the legal representatives, if any, of

the said two deceased respondents were brought on record as per law and

procedure nor were notices served upon the legal representatives, if any, of

the deceased respondents 1 and 2, but the matter was disposed of on merits

and that in the order, the names of Dhanunjaya Rao (revision petitioner in the

1st mentioned revision) and one Jaya Rao were shown under the name of the

deceased 1st respondent though they are not impleaded as party respondents to

the lis after the deaths of the deceased respondents 1 and 2 and though no

notices were served upon them before the said order was passed by the RDO.

6.2 Thus, by the date the Revenue Divisional Officer passed the order, dated

02.03.2010, in case in File No.K/576/2009, both the respondents 1 and 2,

namely, L.Seshagiri Rao and Suguna Bai, died. Without bringing their legal

representatives, if any, on record, the Revenue Divisional Officer, passed the

said order confirming the ownership rights in respect of the subject lands.

However, for reasons best known to the Revenue Divisional Officer, in the order

that was passed, the names of Dhanunjaya Rao (revision petitioner in the 1st 6 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

mentioned revision) and one Jaya Rao were shown under the name of the

deceased 1st respondent, though they were not impleaded and were not served

with notices before the said order was passed. Therefore, a perusal of the

order of the RDO makes it manifest that one of the deceased respondents had

left behind him his two sons, namely, Dhanunjaya Rao and Jaya Rao, and that

the petitioners including the learned RDO are aware of the said fact.

7. In the light of these undisputed factual position, the case of all the

revision petitioners in all these three revision petitions is that the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer is a nullity and that the Joint Collector erroneously

confirmed an order, which is a nullity in the eye of law. In fact, both the said

Dhanunjaya Rao (revision petitioner in the 1st mentioned revision) and one Jaya

Rao, whose names were mentioned in the order of the RDO filed a petition

before the learned RDO under Section 114 read with 47 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908, requesting to review the order, dated 02.03.2010, on the

ground that the said order which was passed against dead persons is null and

void ab initio. By filing the said petition for review, both Dhanunjaya Rao

(revision petitioner in the 1st mentioned revision) and one Jaya Rao, requested

the RDO to reopen the case and give them an opportunity of hearing and

dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. In the said review petition,

it is specifically urged that notices were issued to deceased respondents

therein, that is, deceased L.Seshagiri Rao and deceased Suguna Bai and hence,

notices could not be served on the said deceased persons as they already died

long time back and that steps, which ought to have been taken, were not taken

and that the order was delivered by the RDO against dead persons and hence, it

is illegal, null, void and inexecutable and hence, the said order passed by the

RDO against the dead persons is liable to be reviewed. In fact, when the notice

dated 04.06.2009, was ordered to be served upon the deceased L.Seshagiri Rao

and deceased Suguna Bai, the respondents in case No.K/576/2009, the serving 7 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

officer/Kavalikar returned the said notice with an endorsement to the effect

that Seshagiri Rao died and that his LRs Dhanunjaya Rao and Jaya Rao are not

residing in the village and hence, the notice was affixed on the Gram

Panchayat Notice Board. Thus, the petitioners and the RDO are made aware of

the fact that the respondents died and that one of the respondents left behind

him his legal representatives and that they are not residing in the village.

Thus, it is borne out by the record that petitioners as well as the RDO were

very much aware of the fact that both the respondents died even before the

order was passed by the RDO. Despite the said fact, the petitioners in the said

case have deliberately not taken any steps to bring on record the legal

representatives of the deceased respondents and preferred to obtain an order

against dead persons. Even, the RDO did not direct for impleadment of the

legal representatives of the deceased respondents and proceeded to pass an

order, on 02.03.2010, against the respondents, who are dead. Therefore, it is

an undisputed and admitted fact that the order of the RDO was one passed

against dead persons with the knowledge that the said persons/respondents

died long before the order was passed. The RDO rejected the request of the

parties, who claimed to be LRs of the deceased respondents, to review the

order, which was passed against the dead persons. Such an order which was

passed against dead persons was eventually confirmed by the Joint Collector,

by going into the merits of the matter but ignoring the crucial aspect that the

order of the RDO was one passed against dead persons.

8. Now, the short but important first question is - 'whether the order of the

Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting to consider the request of the revision

petitioner in the first mentioned revision to review the order passed against

the dead persons is liable to be set aside as the said order passed against dead

persons is a nullity?' The sequential question is as to whether the order/s of

the Joint Collector confirming the said order of the RDO passed against the 8 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

deceased respondents/dead persons is/are also liable to be set aside in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

8.1 The fairly well settled legal position that any order passed against a

dead person is a nullity, is not in dispute. In the stated factual background,

which is undisputed and well established, the petitioners in the revisions

pleaded and contended that the revisions may be allowed and the orders

impugned in all the revisions may be set aside and the matter may be remitted

to the RDO for disposal afresh on merits in accordance with law, however, after

following the procedure.

8.2 However, while not disputing the settled general legal position that an

order passed against a dead person is a nullity, the learned counsel for the

contesting unofficial respondents submitted as follows: 'The revision petitioner

in the first mentioned revision, that is, Dhanunjaya Rao, along with his brother

Jaya Rao filed review petition before the RDO in case in File No.K/576/2009

and that review application was rejected by the RDO, on 26.10.2012, vide

Memo No.K/7722/2012. The said review petition was filed in the capacity of

the legal representatives of late Seshagiri Rao. Smt. Suguna Bai had no issues.

The revision petitioner, Dhanunjaya Rao, challenged the said Memo of the RDO

in appeal in Case No.F1/08/2012 in File No.F1/528/2012 without challenging

the main order, dated 02.03.2010, in File No.K/576/2009. In the review

petition, the revision petitioner projected himself as legal representative of

Seshagiri Rao; but in the revision petition he projected himself as legal

representative of Suguna Bai by claiming himself as her adopted son. In the

appeal filed against the rejection of review petition, which is not maintainable,

the revision petitioner, Dhanunjaya Rao, agitated entire matter on merits and

the Joint Collector adjudicated and dismissed the said appeal on merits; and

against such order of the Joint Collector, the first revision in C.R.P.No.2647 of

2013 was filed by Dhanunjaya Rao and hence, the contention that the order of 9 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

the RDO is a nullity has no substance as the Joint Collector adjudicated the

appeal on merits.' Having so contended, the learned counsel placed reliance

on the following decisions: (i) N.Jayaram Reddy and Another v. RDO & LAO,

Kurnool1. The facts and the ratio of this cited case reflect that cross appeals

were filed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge by the Government as

well as the claimants. Subsequently, one of the claimants died and his legal

representatives were brought on record within time in the appeal of the

claimants. But, no such steps were taken by the Government in its cross

appeal. Both the appeals were heard together and common judgment was

delivered. On the said facts, it was held that the LRs had abandoned the plea

of abatement and hence, the plea which was wilfully abandoned by the LRs of

the deceased party at the relevant time cannot be permitted to be raised to

the prejudice of the opposite party and that the cross appeal of the

Government did not abate. In the cited case, death of a claimant occasioned

when cross appeals are pending. In the considered view of this Court, this

cited case is distinguishable on facts, as in the case on hand, the LRs of the

deceased respondents were not brought on record in the primary proceeding

before the RDO and as the order of the RDO itself was one passed against the

dead persons. Hence, it cannot be said that either the respondents in the

proceeding (who died) or the legal representatives of the deceased

respondents, who are not brought on record, had an opportunity of being heard

before the RDO passed the order. Further, when the LRs are not parties to the

lis before the RDO, the question of the said LRs of the deceased respondents

being aware of the proceedings at the inception and abandoning the plea of

abatement also cannot be inferred in the case on hand.

8.3 Further, even according to the versions of both the parties, the revision

petitioner in the first revision herein filed the appeal before the Joint Collector

1 [1979(3) SCC 578] 10 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

against an order/memo of the RDO rejecting to consider the request to review

the order, which was passed by the RDO against the dead persons. When such

is the case, the Joint Collector is not supposed to examine the merits of the

main matter in the said appeal; and, in that view of the matter, it can be said

that the findings of the joint collector in his order in the said appeal are

beyond the scope of the lis and hence, the same do not bind the parties.

8.4 in Jararam Reddy's case ( 1 supra), it was further held as follows: 'The

basic fact remains that a decree against a dead person is treated as a nullity

because, it cannot be allowed to operate against his legal representative when

he was never brought on the record to defend the case. Any other view would

not be possible or permissible for it would fasten on him a liability for which he

did not have any hearing. So, while the law treats such a decree as a nullity

qua the legal representatives of the deceased respondent, there is nothing to

prevent him from deciding that he will not treat the decree as a nullity, but

will abide by it as it stands, or as it may be modified thereafter, on appeal. If a

legal representative adopts that alternative course of action it cannot possibly

be said that his option to be governed by the decree is against the law or any

concept of public policy or purpose, or the public morality.' In the case on

hand, not only there is no waiver but also an objection by way of a review

petition that the order of the RDO is a nullity and void ab initio since passed

against dead persons. The deaths of the respondents had occurred even before

the order was passed by the RDO but not when the appeal came to be

considered by the Joint Collector. This cited decision is therefore helpful to

advance the case of the revision petitioner, Dhanunjaya Rao.

8.5 In Bhagawan Swaroop & Ors. V. Mool Chand & Ors.2, the facts and the

ratio are as follows: "An appeal has been filed against a preliminary decree in

a partition suit which stands on a peculiar footing, as in a partition suit, one

2 AIR 1983 SC 355 11 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

party can claim transposition from the category of the defendant to the

category of plaintiff and vice versa and as with the passing of the preliminary

decree, the shares of the parties are decided and rights of the parties pending

passing of the final decree are to an extent determined. Further, in the cited

decision, there was delay in bringing the legal representatives of the deceased

respondent in the appeal, who was a near relation of the appellant. In that

background, the High Court refused to permit impleadment of the LRs of the

deceased respondent as there was abatement due to delay. In this backdrop,

the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and directed the

appeal to be heard on merits. On facts, the decision has no application to the

case on hand.

8.6 Now, it is profitable to refer to the ratio in the decision of the Supreme

Court in Gurnam Singh (D) through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (D) by

L.Rs.3. This cited case is also a case where deaths of parties have occurred

during the pendency of the appeal. The question, which arose for

consideration in the appeal before the Supreme Court is -- Whether the

impugned order allowing the Plaintiff's second appeal is legally sustainable in

law? In other words, the question is whether the High Court had the jurisdiction

to decide the second appeal when the Appellant and two Respondents had

expired during the pendency of appeal and their legal representatives were not

brought on record? While considering the above question, the Supreme Court

referred to earlier decisions and held as follows:

'In a leading case of this Court in Kiran Singh and Ors. v. Chaman Paswan and Ors. (MANU/SC/0116/1954: AIR 1954 SC 340), the learned Judge Venkatarama Ayyar speaking for the Bench in his distinctive style of writing laid down the following principle of law being fundamental in nature: It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of

3 AIR 2017 SC 2419 12 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. The question, therefore, is whether the impugned judgment/order is a nullity because it was passed by the High Court in favour of and also against the dead persons. In our considered opinion, it is a nullity. The reasons are not far to seek. .. .... ....

It is a fundamental principle of law laid down by this Court in Kiran Singh's case (supra) that a decree passed by the Court, if it is a nullity, its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree holder. The reason is that the defect of this nature affects the very authority of the Court in passing such decree and goes to the root of the case. This principle, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to this case because it is a settled principle of law that the decree passed by a Court for or against a dead person is a "nullity" [See-N. Jayaram Reddy and Anr. v. Revenue Divisional Officer & Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool: (1979) 3 SCC 578, Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar and Anr.: (1998) 5 SCC 567 and Amba Bai and Ors. v. Gopal and Ors.: (2001) 5 SCC 570)].

The Appellants are the legal representatives of Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 on whom the right to sue has devolved. They had, therefore, right to question the legality of the impugned order inter alia on the ground of it being a nullity. Such objection, in our opinion, could be raised in appeal or even in execution proceedings arising out of such decree. In our view, the objection, therefore, deserves to be upheld. It is, accordingly, upheld.

9. To sum up: The order, dated 02.03.2010, passed by the RDO in File no.

K/576/2009 is a nullity as it was passed against the dead persons. Jaya Rao

and the revision petitioner in the first revision, that is, Dhanunjaya Rao, who

are brothers and who had questioned the said order, on the ground that it is a

nullity and void ab intio, by filing a petition for review, have not waived their

rights to question the order of the RDO. They have also not abandoned the

plea of abatement. They are always entitled to question the said order of the

RDO by raising the plea of nullity in any appeal or revision or even in execution

proceedings or collateral proceedings, if any, whenever and wherever brought

for enforcing the said order. The Joint Collector committed gross error in

confirming such an order of the RDO, which is a nullity and which is 13 MSRM, J C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013, 1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

unenforceable and non est. In the appeal filed against the rejection of the

review petition, the joint collector grossly erred in examining the merits of the

main matter by exercising the jurisdiction which is not available to him while

deciding such an appeal. Since the primary order of the RDO is a nullity and is

non est in the eye of law, the question of the LRs of the deceased respondents

being bound by such an order does not arise, in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

10. On the above analysis and in the light of the facts, which are undisputed

and well established, and for the reasons afore-stated, this Court finds that the

order of the RDO which was passed against deceased respondents/dead

persons, without brining on record the legal representatives, if any, of the said

respondents, is a nullity and that the LRs of the deceased respondents therein

have not waived the right to question the order of the RDO on the ground that

it is a nullity and is void ab initio. As a sequel to the above findings, this Court

further finds that the impugned orders of the Joint Collector confirming the

said order of the RDO are also unsustainable and are liable to be set aside

under facts and in law.

11. In view of the above findings, it follows that all the revisions deserve to

be allowed by setting aside the orders impugned in the revisions and the

matter requires to be remitted to the RDO concerned for consideration and

disposal afresh on merits and as per procedure established by law.

12. Before parting it is necessary to state that in view of the above findings

on the first aspect of the matter there is no need to now consider any other

submissions made by both sides on any issues related to the merits of the main

matter. This Court hence, has not gone into the merits of the main matter. It

is made clear that the RDO shall decide the matter now remitted on its merit

as this Court did not at all go into the merits of the main matter.

                                        14                               MSRM, J
                                                          C.R.P.Nos.2647 of 2013,
                                                      1372 of 2015 & 5588 of 2011

13. In the result, all the three Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the

orders impugned are set aside holding inter alia that the order, dated

02.03.2010, of the Revenue Divisional Officer in case No.K/579/2009, which

was passed against the respondents, who are dead, is a nullity. Accordingly,

the said matter is remitted to the RDO with a direction to permit the parties to

bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondents and give

an opportunity to the parties to file pleadings/additional pleadings, as the case

may be, and decide the matter afresh on merits and in strict accordance with

the procedure established by law. Considering the fact that the matter is of

the year 2009, the learned Revenue Divisional Officer concerned is directed to

dispose of the case now remitted as expeditiously as possible and preferably

within a period of two (02) months from the date of impleadment of the legal