SHITLA Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondents and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Since the matter relates to the same issue, both the petitions are being heard and decided by a common order In the petition i.e., Writ B No. 1248 of 1980, the petitioner as well as the private respondent nos. 2,3 and 4 have expired and upon an application moved by the petitioners, legal heirs of the deceased parties have been duly substituted.

(3.) A request was made by learned counsel for the petitioners today at the time when the matter was taken up that though substitution applications have been allowed previously but inadvertently amendment has not been incorporated in the array of parties.