Judgment :- Petitioner's mother while she was alive filed an application in the year 1971 under S.75(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act seeking to acquire land for getting the second respondent's Kudikidappu shifted to another side. Since the Government alone had competence to dispose of application under S, 75(3), the Revenue Divisional officer transferred the said application to the first respondent, Government. The second respondent had filed two applications for purchase of Kudikidappu. But they were dismissed on the ground that the application filed by the mother under S.75(3) was pending. After 18 years, the first respondent issued notice to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause why her mother's petit ion under S.75(3) should not be rejected. Ext. P1 is the said notice. She filed a petition stating that she may be impleaded as the sole legal representative of the applicant and that she was entitled to all the rights of her mother including that of moving the first respondent under S.75(3) and that she was prepared to deposit whatever amount that was necessary to meet the expenses of acquisition. Ext. P2 is the-said petition. Thereafter the first respondent passed the impugned order Ext. P3 stating that the right of the applicant has not been sufficiently recognised and crystallised by any Government Order and in the circumstances there is no ground to allow the application. 2. In this O.P. the petitioner has challenged the order of the Government. 3. The question to be considered is whether the proceedings under S.75(3) can be continued by legal representatives. The counsel for respondent argued it is only in cases where the right to shift lias been recognised by an order allowing application and has been sufficiently crystallised by the same, the right is transmittable to legal representatives on the death of the applicant and sought support from a Division Bench ruling of this court in Beepathumma v. Ponnamma, 1979 KLT 474. No doubt in that case there was order allowing application and only further proceedings had to be taken for acquisition. No doubt in that case there was order allowing application and only further proceedings had to be taken for acquisition. But the Division Bench held that all causes of action survive to and against legal representatives with a few exceptions and it also made it clear that it does not matter whether before payment of the whole or the required part of the purchase price or decision as to the suitability of the alternate site, the applicant who applied under S.75(3) died and the legal representative had been seeking to prosecute the proceedings initiated by the predecessor. It follows that the petitioner is entitled to continue the proceedings. It is for the Government to consider whether under the changed situation there is bonafide need and whether necessary requests for allowing an application under S.75(3) are satisfied. I therefore set aside Ext. P3 order and direct the Government to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. O.P. is disposed of as above. Before passing the final order, an opportunity of being heard will be given to the petitioner as well as the second respondent, who is the kudikidappukars.