HARIHAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5, 9 and 10.

(2.) The other private respondents have not yet appeared. Respondent Nos. 11 and 14 have died and accordingly, I.A. No. 5265 of 2019 has been filed for substitution of the deceased respondents by their heirs and legal representatives. As the substitution petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation, I.A. No. 5266 of 2019 has been filed for condonation of the delay. However, in view of the order that is being passed in this case, we do not think it necessary to keep the matter pending for substitution of the deceased respondents and awaiting the appearance of other respondents and the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondents. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merit as well.

(3.) This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgement dated 21.1.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 7058 of 2013, whereby the writ application, filed by the appellants writ petitioners, challenging the order dated 31.3.2012 in Title Revision No. 3 of 1993, passed by the Divisional Commissioner of Santhal Pargana, Dumka, has been dismissed by the Writ Court.