# State of U.P v. Uday Bhan (Deceased) & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 634
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026
- **Case number:** First Appeal Defective No. 221 of 2022
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-v-uday-bhan-deceased-anr-54463
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

57. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
testimony of PW-4 and PW-5, who are natural child witnesses of the occurrence, has been found to
be cogent, credible and trustworthy. Their presence at the place of occurrence is natural and their
version stands fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the forensic report. The nature
of injuries, the weapons used, and the manner of assault, as deposed by them, find complete
support from the post-mortem reports. The recovery of incriminating articles and weapon at the
instance of the accused, coupled with the forensic evidence establishing the use of firearm, lends
further assurance to the prosecution case. The conduct of the accused, his failure to furnish any
plausible explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the inconsistency in the testimony of PW-1,
read with the General Diary entry, further strengthen the prosecution version. The alleged
discrepancies and contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are minor in
nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. It is well settled that minor inconsistencies
are bound to occur in truthful testimonies and cannot be a ground to discard otherwise reliable
evidence. Thus, on an overall appreciation of the ocular evidence, medical evidence and forensic
analysis on record, it stands established that PW-4 and PW-5, who are the eye witness of the
incident, are credible and reliable and their testimonies inspire confidence. The evidence
consistently points towards the guilt of the accused-appellant, leaving no reasonable ground for a
conclusion consistent with his innocence.

58. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated
05.09.2008 passed by the learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions
Trial No. 419 of 1999 are hereby affirmed.

59. The appellant, Tarsem Singh, is in jail and shall continue to serve out the remaining part of
his sentence in accordance with law.

60. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

61. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be transmitted to
the court concerned forthwith, and in any case within a period of one week, for compliance.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 634
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04 .2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 221 of 2022

State of U.P. ...Appellant
Versus
Uday Bhan (Deceased) & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Uday Bhan (Deceased) & Anr.
635
Matter pertains to whether the First Appeal filed by State against a deceased respondent, without impleading
his legal heirs and representatives, is legally maintainable; and whether such defect can be cured by filing an
application for substitution of legal heirs at a subsequent stage, particularly when the appellant had prior
knowledge of the death of respondent.

Headnotes
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s. 54 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O. XXII R. 4 - Death of
respondent prior to filing of appeal - Appeal filed against dead person - Maintainability - The
instant matter arose from a First Appeal preferred by State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the
judgment and award dated 31.03.2018 passed by Reference Court, whereby compensation was
enhanced in favor of land owners - The appeal was filed after an inordinate delay of 1516 days -
During the pendency of proceedings relating to condonation of delay, it came on record that one
of respondents, Kailash Singh, had expired prior to institution of appeal - Despite having
knowledge of his death through the proceedings and pleadings filed before the Court, the State
failed to implead his legal heirs within the prescribed period of limitation and subsequently
moved an application for substitution only after an abatement application was filed by legal heir
of deceased respondent - The controversy before the High Court, therefore, centred around the
maintainability of an appeal instituted against a deceased respondent and whether such defect
could be cured by subsequent substitution of legal representatives.

Held: The abatement application of Kuwar Prakash Singh and substitution application of State along with
delay condonation application are dismissed, being legally not maintainable because the appeal was filed
against dead respondent Kailash Singh - Had he died after the filing of appeal, then, abatement and
substitution application were legally maintainable - The appeal having being filed against dead respondent,
was itself not legally maintainable, which was non-est, as such, no question of condoning the delay, in its
filing arises - In view of the facts, all the applications being legally not maintainable are dismissed -
Consequently, the appeal being filed against dead respondent Kailash Singh is also dismissed as a nullity -
Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2018 of Reference Court affirmed. [Paras 13 to
15] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
State of West Bengal v. Manisha Maity and others 1963 SCC OnLine Cal 85; Ravinder Dabas v. Govt. of NCT
of Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4458

List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keywords
First Appeal; s. 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Reference Court; Compensation; Land owners; Delay
condonation Application; Limitation; Substitution application; Legal heir; Legal representative; Abatement
Application; Execution Proceedings; Decree Holder; Maintainability; Non-Est; Nullity; Dead respondent;
Impleadment; Negligence; Prescribed period of limitation; Statutory benefits; Award; Appeal filed against
dead person; O.XXII R. 4 CPC - Substitution of legal heirs; Dismissed as not maintainable.

Case Arising From
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: First Appeal Defective No. - 221 of 2022

From the Judgment and Decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge & Judge Land
Acquisition/FTC-II, Mau in L.A.R. No.46 of 1991.

Appearances for Parties
636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Adv. for the Appellant(s):
Tej Bhanu Pandey

Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Anand Prakash Pandey, Sushma Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

InRe: Civil Misc. Abatement Application No.9 of 2025

1. This application has been filed by Kuwar Prakash Singh the legal heir of deceased
respondent no.1/1 Kailash Singh on the ground that Kailash Singh has died on 07.06.2021 and its
information was also given to the appellant-State in the counter affidavit filed to the delay
condonation application of the appellant, a copy of which was received by the State on 02.02.2024
but still the substitution application was not moved by the State within the prescribed period of
limitation. It was further submitted that when the substitution application was not moved by the
appellant, then this abatement application was filed on 16.09.2025 for abating the appeal and then
substitution application along with the condonation of delay has been filed by the State on
24.09.2025. Learned counsel submitted that from the above facts, it is apparent that there was
deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in not bringing on record the legal heir of deceased
respondent Kailash Singh which cannot be condoned, keeping in view the conduct of the appellant.

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2022, Civil Misc. Delay
Condonation Application No.10 of 2025, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.11 of 2025 &
First Appeal

1. According to office report, the instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 1516 days on
09.09.2022.

2. The instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the
State for reduction of compensation awarded by the Reference Court through judgment and decree
dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge & Judge Land Acquisition/FTC-II, Mau
in L.A.R. No.46 of 1991 [Uday Bhan (Deceased) through legal heirs vs. State of U.P. through
Collector, Mau] whereby a compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre has been awarded to the land
owners along with other statutory benefits admissible under the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred because
permission was sought from the higher officials and only after obtaining permission, the appeal was
filed. Learned counsel submitted that ultimately the permission was granted by the State on
19.05.2022 for filing this appeal, thereafter, this appeal has been filed with delay on 09.09.1992.
Learned counsel submitted that since the permission from the State was obtained with delay, as
such, the delay in filing the instant appeal be condoned and thereafter, the appeal be decided on
merits.

4. It was further submitted that only after filing of abatement application on 16.09.2025, the
appellant became aware that the respondent Kailash Singh has died, as such, the substitution has
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Uday Bhan (Deceased) & Anr.
637
been filed within the period of limitation, from the date of knowledge, on 24.09.2025. It was
submitted that there is no delay in filing the substitution application, and if there is any delay, then
it be condoned, and the application be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent land owners submitted that the award of the
Reference Court was passed on 31.03.2018 but when the State did not pay the compensation as
awarded by the Reference Court then the land owner was compelled to file execution proceeding,
which was numbered as Execution Case No.5 of 2019 (Kailash Singh and others vs. State of U.P.),
in which the District Government Counsel(D.G.C.) remained present, who from time to time
sought adjournment in the matter, which was granted by the executing court. Learned counsel
further submitted that when the State failed to pay the compensation then an order was passed by
the executing court for attaching the account of the State. It was further submitted that the State
moved an application to recall attachment, which was also dismissed by the executing court on
11.10.2021 but even then the appeal was not filed. Learned counsel further submitted that the
executing court from time to time recorded the assurances given by the D.G.C. regarding filing of
appeal by the State but deliberately neither the appeal was filed nor any payment was made to the
land owners. Learned counsel further submitted that in the counter affidavit filed by the land owner
to the delay condonation application of the State, it was informed that the land owner Kailash Singh
has died and even the counter affidavit was filed by his heir Kuwar Prakash Singh but even then
substitution application was not moved by the State within the prescribed period of limitation. It
was further submitted that ultimately when the abatement application was filed by the land owner,
then substitution application was filed on 24.09.2025, which was more than four years after the
death of the respondent Kailash Singh, who died on 07.06.2021. Learned counsel submitted that it
is apparent from the above facts that State has remained negligent in moving the substitution
application as well as in pursuing the remedy before this Court and conduct of the State disentitles
it from getting any relief from this Court. With these submissions, it was prayed that the
substitution application of the State be dismissed since the appeal has already abated and the delay
condonation application of the State be also dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is apparent that the judgment and award of the Reference Court was passed on 31.03.2018
and the execution case was filed by the land owner, which was numbered as Execution Case No.5
of 2019. The respondent land owner has filed certified copy of the proceedings of the execution
case, which disclose that State was well aware of the execution proceedings but no appeal was filed
within the prescribed period of limitation and even the account of the State was attached in
compliance of the order of the executing court. It is further evident that the executing court also
wrote a letter to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of U.P for making payment to the
land owners but even then no appeal was filed by the State. Ultimately, the executing court was
compelled to pass the order dated 03.08.2021 whereby the account of the State in the treasury was
attached in order to make payment of the compensation to the land owners. It is further apparent
that an application was moved by the State for recalling that order, which was also rejected. By
order dated 03.08.2021 of the executing court, the decree holder was directed to take steps for the
attachment of the account of the State. It is further apparent that Kuwar Prakash Singh moved an
application disclosing that decree holder Kailash Singh has died on 27.06.2021 and an application
638 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was moved for bringing on record legal heir of the deceased decree holder, which was allowed on
27.08.2021. It is further apparent that by order dated 01.10.2021, the account of the
Collector/District Magistrate, Mau in Union Bank of India, Collectorate Branch, Mau was attached
for an amount of Rs.25,50,000/- but even then the appeal was not filed by the State.

8. It is further apparent that the instant appeal was filed by the State on 09.09.2022 with the
delay of 1516 days and a delay condonation application was filed against which a counter affidavit
was filed by the respondent land owner, who opposed the delay condonation on the above grounds.
It is specifically averred in the counter affidavit that the appellant-State was very well aware of
passing of the impugned judgment and decree by the Reference Court but deliberately no appeal
was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. The counter affidavit has been filed by Kuwar
Prakash Singh, who is the legal heir of deceased-respondent Kailash Singh, who died on
27.06.2021, prior to filing of the appeal, as such, the State was supposed to move impleadment
application promptly, for bringing on record Kuwar Prakash Singh, but it was ultimately filed after
a delay of more than three years, when an abatement application was moved by Kuwar Prakash
Singh on 16.09.2025 to abate the appeal. It is apparent that the appeal was filed against the dead
respondent Kailash Singh, and in the execution proceeding, the State was aware that he has died on
27.06.2021.

9. The above facts and circumstances amply demonstrate that the State has always been
negligent in pursuing the remedy available to it and only on this ground that the permission for
filing of the appeal was granted belatedly, the delay in filing the instant appeal cannot be condoned.
It is further apparent that there was gross negligence on the part of the State in preferring this
appeal, which was filed against dead respondent, and not bringing on record the legal heirs of
deceased respondent Kailash Singh for more than three years, inspite of knowledge, for which there
cannot be any plausible explanation because for bringing on record, the legal heir of deceased
respondent, no permission of higher officials of the State was required.

10. It is apparent that the appeal of the State filed against dead respondent, is a nullity and
non-est. The conduct of the State, debars it from getting any relief from this Court.

11. The High Court of Calcutta in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Manisha Maity and
others 1963 SCC OnLine Cal 85, held as under:-

"15. Rule 4 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, providing for the procedure for
substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of deceased defendants, no doubt applies to
appeals and provides for substitution of the heirs of a deceased respondent. But the rule has no
application when the appeal itself was preferred against a dead person. In other words, if the
appeal had been preferred against a respondent, who was alive at the time of the filing of the
appeal, but died subsequent thereto, his heirs and legal representatives may be brought on the
record, by way of substitution, within the time allowed by law. If an application for substitution of
the heirs of a respondent, who died during the pendency of the appeal, be not made within the time
allowed by law, the appeal abates but rule 9 of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides
for a procedure for setting aside abatement. But if an appeal be preferred against a dead
respondent, the appeal itself is still born and is no appeal in the eye of law. Nothing in Order 22
4 All. State of U.P. Vs. Uday Bhan (Deceased) & Anr.
639
of the Code of Civil Procedure will revive the appeal, when the death of the respondent comes to
light.

16. In order to prefer an appeal against a decree obtained by a person, who was dead at
the time of the filing of the appeal, it would be necessary to make his heirs or legal representatives
respondents to the appeal The factum of the death of the decree-holder and names of his heirs or
legal representatives may be incorporated, for greater safety, in an affidavit accompanying the
memorandum of appeal, and an order may be sought from the appeal court to proceed with the
appeal against the heirs of the person, who had obtained the decree.

17. The remedy of an appellant, who has unknowingly filed an appeal against a dead
person, is to file an application for presentation of the appeal against the heirs of the dead person
afresh. If the time for filing the appeal was in the meantime over, he is to present an application,
under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therein explaining the delay in presenting the appeal afresh
against the heirs of the dead person. If he can make out sufficient cause for making the belated
prayer, the court may allow the same, amend the cause title of the memorandum of appeal by
incorporation of the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the dead person and treat the
appeal as a freshly presented appeal against the heirs."

(emphasis supplied)

12. Similarly, the High Court of Delhi in the case of Ravinder Dabas vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4458, held as under:-

"11. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that the
present appeal stands abated qua deceased respondent No. 3. Perusal of the appeal filed by the
appellant herein demonstrates that it has been clearly stated on behalf of the appellant that Gian
Chand died in the year 2020. Thus, the appeal was filed on behalf of the appellant against a dead
person. An appeal filed against a dead person is clearly not maintainable and is a nullity. Thus,
provisions under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased
respondent No. 3, cannot be invoked by the appellant herein. The provision of Order XXII Rule 4
CPC will apply only in a case when a party dies during the pendency of the proceedings. A bare
perusal of provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 CPC manifest that the said provisions apply only in
case of death of the respondent during the subsistence of the case."

(emphasis supplied)

13. In view of the above facts, the abatement application of Kuwar Prakash Singh and the
substitution application of the State along with delay condonation application are dismissed, being
legally not maintainable because the appeal was filed against dead respondent Kailash Singh. Had
he died after the filing of appeal, then, abatement and substitution application were legally
maintainable. The appeal having being filed against dead respondent, was itself not legally
maintainable, which was non-est, as such, no question of condoning the delay, in its filing arises.

14. In view of the above facts, all the applications being legally not maintainable are
dismissed. Consequently, the appeal being filed against dead respondent Kailash Singh is also
dismissed as a nullity.
640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. The impugned judgment and award dated 31.03.2018 of the Reference Court is affirmed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 640
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Income Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2026

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax I, Lucknow ...Petitioner
Versus
Medharaj Techno Concept Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether, in exercise of jurisdiction u/s 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, the High Court is
required to interfere with the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the findings recorded
by the Tribunal regarding the genuineness and explanation of cash deposits made during the demonetisation
period are perverse, contrary to the evidence on record, or give rise to any substantial question of law.

Headnotes
Income Tax Act, 1961 - ss. 68, 260A - Appeal - Substantial question of law - Scope of
interference - Demonetisation period - Cash deposits - Burden of proof - Cash credit - The
instant matter arose from an Income Tax Appeal preferred by Revenue u/s 260A of Income Tax
Act, 1961, challenging the judgment and order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Lucknow, whereby the Tribunal deleted the addition made u/s 68 of Income Tax Act in respect
of cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetisation period - During assessment
proceedings, the Assessing Officer treated the cash deposits as unexplained cash credits and
made an addition, doubting the explanation furnished by assessee regarding availability of cash
in hand - The assessee argued that the deposits represented cash balance duly reflected in the
audited books of account, and no defect had been pointed out by Assessing Officer - The
Tribunal, upon appreciation of material available on record, accepted the explanation of
assessee and held that the addition was based merely on suspicion and conjectures - Aggrieved
by order of Tribunal, the Revenue approached the High Court, raising the issue whether the
findings recorded by Tribunal suffered from perversity or involved any substantial question of
law warranting interference u/s 260A of Act.
Held: Once the availability of cash in hand was established and Assessing Officer could not indicate anything
to the contrary as to how that cash in hand was spent, the explanation of assessee that the cash in hand was
deposited in the banks could not have been rejected by Assessing Officer - Thus, no substantial question of
law arises in the present case, as there is no perversity in the findings of Tribunal whatsoever - Accordingly,
appeal dismissed. [Paras 7, 14] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Arulvelu v. State reported in (2009) 10 SCC 206; S.R. Tewari v. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC
602; CIT v. Ajay Kapoor reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2779 - referred to

Pr. CIT, Bareilly, UP v. Dharam Singh; (2025) 342 CTR 653: 245 DTR 369 - relied on