RAGHURAJ Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, counsel for respondent no.5 and the learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the revisional order dtd. 2/2/2022 passed by respondent no.2 as well as order dtd. 21/11/2020, passed by respondent no.3, allowing the substitution application in respect of respondent no.5.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that in the appeal under Sec. 331(3) of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, arising out of suit under Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, before the Commissioner, an application for substitution was filed on 23/1/2020 with the prayer that Manorma be substituted in place of deceased - Girija Kumari, the appellant in the pending appeal. On the substitution application, objection was filed by the opposite parties, on the ground that in the substitution application, date of death of deceased - Girija Kumari has not been mentioned. The objection further was that the application was not accompanied by an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and the 3rd objection was to the effect that the application was also not supported by any affidavit as there is a delay in filing the substitution application and the deceased Girija Kumari was expired in the year 2002. The Commissioner allowed the substitution application on the payment of Rs.500.00 on the ground that since the substitution has taken place in the consolidation proceedings, as such, only formal application is sufficient for substituting the legal heirs of deceased revisionist. The order of the Commissioner was challenged in the revision before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue has also maintained the order of the Commissioner. Hence, the present petition.