SUNIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of a consolidation proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short "Consolidation Act"), respondent No. 5 Brijnandan Mahto is/was a contesting party. The impugned order dated 20.12.1999 (Annexure-2) passed in Revision Case No. 392 of 1985 by the respondent Deputy Director of Consolidation (HQ), Bihar, Patna, was in favour of the respondent No. 5 allowing his claim with respect to the lands under dispute. During the pendency of the main writ petition, the aforesaid respondent No. 5 died in February, 2008 leaving behind him his heirs and legal representatives, who inherited their legal rights with respect to the lands in dispute after death of aforesaid Brijnandan Mahto.

(2.) Interlocutory Application No. 6906 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners before this Court on 10.10.2012 stating therein that during the pendency of main writ petition respondent No. 5 died in February, 2008 (specific date not disclosed), leaving behind him his heirs and legal representatives, who have been detailed in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Interlocutory Application. Admittedly, the present Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 5 after a long delay of 4 years 8 months (approximately).

(3.) An objection has been taken by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries that in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1996 2 SCC 205, the prayer for substitution made on behalf of the petitioners cannot be allowed at this stage, as the substitution petition has not been filed within a reasonable period of time and the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 5 cannot be compelled to contest the claim, which due to inaction of the petitioners has become final.