# Jag Prasad & Ors v. Additional Commissioner, Administration, 2nd, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 624 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-02-20 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 526 of 2026 - **Bench:** Alok Mathur - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jag-prasad-ors-v-additional-commissioner-administration-2nd-devi-patan-division-54261 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 624 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES High Court is palpably wrong or ceased to be good law in view of amendment in the Act or any subsequent declaration of law." 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am unable to accept the request of the learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 for referring the aforesaid well settled issue for reconsideration by a larger Bench and this request of the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 4 is turned down. 20. Regarding the other submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even while filling up a casual vacancy of Pradhan under Section 12-J of the Panchayat Raj Act, the principle of reservation has to be followed, the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Brij Rani Singh v. State of U.P.: 2000 SCC OnLine All 1249 : 2000 All LJ 1854 had as follows: - "25. ...it is apparent that the arrangement made for filling up temporary vacancy in the office of Pradhan which may cause, because of certain factors including removal of Pradhan would not mean that the office of Pradhan is filled up by a person or member or Up-Pradhan who is otherwise not eligible or was not eligible to contest for the seat of Pradhan in a particular reserved constituency. This being only a simple arrangement during a temporary vacancy, no exception of the same can be taken and It can not be read in derogation with the provisions regarding reservation made under the Act and prescribed under the Rules...." 21. Therefore, the rule of reservation has to be applied even while making nomination of a member of a village Panchayat under Section 12-J of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act to perform the duties of a Pradhan against a casual vacancy of Pradhan. 22. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 26.06.2025, passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur, whereby the District Panchayat Raj Officer has nominated the opposite party No. 4 to perform the duties of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Sikauha, Development Block Reusa, District Sitapur until further orders, or until a Pradhan is appointed, is unsustainable in law and the same is quashed. The District Magistrate/District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitapur is directed to make a fresh appointment of officiating Pradhan, keeping in view the observations made in this judgment. 23. With the aforesaid observations/directions the petition stands allowed. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 624 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 20.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Writ C No. 526 of 2026 Jag Prasad & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Additional Commissioner, Administration, 2nd, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & Ors. ...Respondents 2 All. Jag Prasad & Ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Administration, 2nd, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & Ors. 625 Issue(s) for consideration Whether in case, notices were served to the legal heirs of the deceased respondent would amount to effective service on the parties to the proceedings? Headnotes A. Land Law - Section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code / 41 of Land Revenue Act - Service of notice on persons who are not parties to the proceedings is of no value, as they cannot participate in such proceeding despite service. Once some of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of Swami Deen were never substituted and hence they were never the contesting parties before the SDM and their status of necessary party would accrue only when the application for substitution if had been filed in accordance with law would have been allowed by the SDM. (Para 9) There is no dispute w.r.t. the facts, but only the infirmity claimed by the petitioners is w.r.t. not giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by the SDM at the stage of confirming the revenue report dated 02.01.2020 and passing of the order dated 20.05.2022. It is noticed that Swami Deen who was a respondent before the SDM and a recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 23 situated at Village Madhavpar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda was a necessary party in proceedings for demarcation. He had died on 12.09.2020 and no application for substitution was preferred by the private respondents before the SDM at any stage prior to passing of the order dated 20.05.2022. The infirmity in the said proceedings is said to have cured when notices were issued on the fresh revenue report dated 02.01.2020 which was served on some of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of Swami Deen. (Para 8) In the present case, service of notice on the legal heirs prior to their being substituted as parties in the regular proceedings cannot be deemed to be effective service curing the defect of nonsubstitution of the deceased respondent. Accordingly, the service on the legal heirs of Swami Deen will(not) cure the defect of non-substituting Swami Deen with his legal heirs and hence the infirmity which was existing at the stage of passing of the impugned order by the SDM dated 20.05.2022 cannot be cured by assuming the service to be effective service on the parties to the proceedings. Therefore, this Court finds that the revisional authority has incorrectly appreciated the law and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. (Para 10) The impugned orders dated 06.05.2025 and 20.05.2022 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the SDM to proceed afresh from the stage of receipt of the report dated 02.01.2020. (Para 11) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) List of Acts U.P. Revenue Code/Land Revenue Act. List of Keywords Land, demarcation, infirmity, adequate, opportunity, substitution, service, legal, heir, deceased. Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s): Faiz Ahmad Khan For Respondent(s): C.S.C., Chandra Shekhar Shukla, Pankaj Gupta, Vijay Shankar Trivedi (Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.) 1. Heard Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Vijay Shankar Trivedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 8. 626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 2. The dispute in the present case pertains to demarcation of the land situated at Gata No. 32 measuring 0.870 hect. recorded in the name of predecessor in interest of the private respondents. The petitioners are recorded tenure holders of land situated at Gata No. 23 situated at Village Madhavpar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda which is adjacent to Gata No. 32 and accordingly were necessary parties in proceedings U/S 24 of U.P. Revenue Code / 41 of Land Revenue Act. 3. The proceedings were initiated sometimes in 2015 and the report of the revenue officials were also called for but subsequently during the proceedings after hearing the objections another fresh report of revenue officials were called which were submitted on 02.01.2020. It seems that when the case was next listed on 20.05.2022, the petitioners did not put in appearance nor did they filed their objections against the report dated 02.01.2020 and consequently the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda confirmed the demarcation report as per the report of the revenue officials dated 02.01.2020 and directed for actual demarcation proceedings to be conducted (Patharnasin). The petitioners thereafter had preferred a revision before Additional Commissioner (Administration-II) stating that after filing of the second revenue report on 02.01.2020 no opportunity was given to them. 4. Apart from the fact that one of the parties to the case namely, Swami Deen had died on 12.03.2020 and accordingly the order dated 20.05.2022 has been passed against a dead person. The revisional authority has duly considered the objections filed by the petitioner and found that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had issued notices on a receipt of the revenue report dated 02.01.2020. He has further observed that no doubt that Swami Deen had died in the meanwhile during the proceedings but the notice was received by petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 who are the legal heirs of Swami Deen and accordingly once the legal heirs were served then the infirmity with regard to death of Swami Deen stood cured and accordingly declined to interfere in exercise his judicial power and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the writ petition has been filed before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 20.05.2022 and the order dated 06.05.2025. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that once a party to a civil dispute has died then it is incumbent for him to be substituted before the proceedings can be finalized and there is no dispute with regard to legal proposition that any order passed against a dead person is a nullity and void. He submits that undoubtedly even if it is assumed that the notices were served on the legal heir of Swami Deen but they were not parties to the present dispute at that time and such a service on the legal heirs of Swami Deen (deceased) cannot be deemed to be effective service on Swami Deen. He submits that it is only after curing the defect and making necessary substitution of Swami Deen the proceedings could have continued after adequately serving notices on the legal heirs of Swami Deen. 6. Accordingly, in this regard it is stated that the order dated 20.05.2022 is illegal and arbitrary and even the order dated 06.5.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as he has wrongly appreciated the aspect pertaining to substitution of the parties and both the orders deserves to be set aside. 2 All. Jag Prasad & Ors. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Administration, 2nd, Devi Patan Division, Gonda & Ors. 627 7. Learned counsel for respondents on the other hand has opposed the writ petition and submitted that merely because petitioners were not served or were not properly served cannot be a sole ground for setting aside the impugned order inasmuch as they were fully aware of the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and had deliberately not participated in the said proceedings and therefore had supported the impugned orders. 8. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is noticed that there is no dispute with regard to the facts, but only the infirmity claimed by the petitioners is with regard to not giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the stage of confirming the revenue report dated 02.01.2020 and passing of the order dated 20.05.2022. It is noticed that Swami Deen who was a respondent before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and a recorded tenure holder of Plot No. 23 situated at Village Madhavpar, Pargana, Tehsil and District Gonda was a necessary party in proceedings for demarcation. He had died on 12.09.2020 and no application for substitution was preferred by the private respondents before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at any stage prior to passing of the order dated 20.05.2022. The infirmity in the said proceedings is said to have cured when notices were issued on the fresh revenue report dated 02.01.2020 which was served on some of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of Swami Deen. 9. The aspect which required consideration before this Court is as to whether in case notices were served to the legal heirs of the deceased-respondent would amount to effective service on the parties to the proceedings. There is again no dispute that once some of the petitioners who are the legal heirs of Swami Deen were never substituted and hence they were never the contesting parties before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and their status of necessary party would accrue only when the application for substitution if had been filed in accordance with law would have been allowed by the SDM. Accordingly, service of notice on persons who are not parties to the proceedings is of no value, as they cannot participate in such proceeding despite service. 10. In the present case, service of notice on the legal heirs prior to their being substituted as parties in the regular proceedings cannot be deemed to be effective service curing the defect of non-substitution of the deceased respondent. Accordingly, the service on the legal heirs of Swami Deen will cure the defect of non-substituting Swami Deen with his legal heirs and hence the infirmity which was existing at the stage of passing of the impugned order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 20.05.2022 cannot be cured by assuming the service to be effective service on the parties to the proceedings. It is in this regard, this Court finds that the revisional authority has been incorrectly appreciated the law and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 06.05.2025 and 20.05.2022 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to proceed afresh from the stage of receipt of the report dated 02.01.2020. The petitioners would be at liberty to file their objections within next three weeks and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate shall conclude the proceedings within a period of two months thereafter by speaking and reasoned order in accordance with law. 12. Parties before this Court undertake to cooperate in the proceedings and shall not take any unnecessary adjournments. 628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 13. Till such time as final orders are passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the parties shall maintain status quo over the disputed land as existing today. 14. Affidavit of service filed today is taken on record. ---------- (2026) 2 ILRA 628 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 06.02.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. Writ C No. 1113 of 2026 Rajesh Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioner Versus State Election Commissioner U.P. Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Who shall be deemed to be an ordinary resident in the territorial constituency of a Gram Panchayat? Headnotes A. Civil Law - U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947: Section 9(3) - The Explanation appended to Section 9(3) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act clarifies that a person shall not be treated to be an ordinary resident in the territorial constituency merely on the ground that is in possession of a dwelling house therein, whereas the petitioners are claiming themselves to be residents of Village Panchayat- Kandaari only on the ground that the petitioner no. 1 is in possession of a room in the sahan of Rakesh Kumar, son of Banwari Lal in village Shahzadpur in village Panchayat Kandaari and he has put up his name plate on it portraying it to be his residence, whereas it has come to light in inquiry that that there was no evidence of their actual residence in that room and they are ordinarily residing in village Shahzadpur in village panchayat Bambhauri. (Para 7) B. Even if the petitioners are absenting themselves temporarily from their place of ordinary residence in Village Panchayat- Bambhauri, they shall not by reason thereof cease to be ordinarily residents of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri. The names of the other family members of the petitioners are recorded in the electoral roll of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri. Several villagers have stated that the petitioners are not residents of Village Panchayat- Kandaari and some of them have given affidavits stating that the petitioners are residents of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri and their names are recorded in the electoral roll of that Village. (Para 9) C. The S.D.M. has passed the impugned order holding the petitioners to be ordinary residents of Village Panchayat- Bambhauri after proper consideration of all the facts of the case, as required by Explanation (v) appended to Section 9(3) of the Act. (Para 10) Writ petition dismissed. List of Acts U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.