# Thakur Prasad v. The D.D.C., Azamgarh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 676
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-30
- **Case number:** Writ-B No. 1545 of 1976
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/thakur-prasad-v-the-d-d-c-azamgarh-ors-44729
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act- Sec.
23 - Allotment of Chak-Objection filedincongruence between impugned order and
adjustment
chart-areaof
land
allotted
to
petitioner-not figured in adjustment chart-allotted
plot no. 1460-given plot nos. 1660, 1263,
1264,1266,1473-all worst than original holdingplot no. 1460.

Held :- the Writ Petition succeeds and is
allowed in part only to the extent that the
adjustment chart enclosed to the impugned
order shall be appropriately corrected to bring
it in accord with the order under reference and
include the area of the petitioner's holding, as
directed in the substantive part of the order.
To this extent, the impugned order stands
modified.

Writ Petition allowed in part (E-8)

## Text

676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Act), Lucknow in Criminal Revision
No.164 of 2012 and the order 26.03.2012
passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate
(CBI), Lucknow in Case No.3/ 12, R.C.
No.7(S)/ 2008, under Sections 147, 148,
302, 307, 342, 504, 506 IPC, Police
Station
CBI
(ACB),
Lucknow
are
quashed. The petitions under Section 482
of Cr.P.C. are allowed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 676

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-B No. 1545 of 1976

Thakur Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
The D.D.C., Azamgarh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.N. Singh, Sri P.N. Singh, Sri R.N.
Pandey, Sri Ishir Sripat, Sri Rahul Sripat

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Sri J.N. Sharma

A. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act- Sec.
23 - Allotment of Chak-Objection filedincongruence between impugned order and
adjustment
chart-areaof
land
allotted
to
petitioner-not figured in adjustment chart-allotted
plot no. 1460-given plot nos. 1660, 1263,
1264,1266,1473-all worst than original holdingplot no. 1460.

Held :- the Writ Petition succeeds and is
allowed in part only to the extent that the
adjustment chart enclosed to the impugned
order shall be appropriately corrected to bring
it in accord with the order under reference and
include the area of the petitioner's holding, as
directed in the substantive part of the order.
To this extent, the impugned order stands
modified.

Writ Petition allowed in part (E-8)
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This Writ Petition is directed
against an order of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
Azamgarh,
dated
14.01.1976 passed in Revision no.428,
Guru Granth vs. Naumi and others, and
Revision no.583, Sant Kumar vs. Guru
Granth and others. Also, under challenge,
is a subsequent order dated 21.02.1976
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Azamgarh in Restoration
Application no.111, Sant Kumar vs. Guru
Granth and others, seeking to set aside the
order dated 14.01.1976, in so far it relates
to the two Revisions aforesaid, seeking to
restore those Revisions to their original
number, and determine them afresh.

2. At the outset, it must be remarked
that the prayer clause in the Writ petition
is rather vaguely worded, and reads thus:

"It is, therefore, prayed that Writ in
the nature of Certiorari be issued to send
for the records of the case and to quash
the orders of the Deputy Director, and
that any other suitable Writ, Order or
direction be issued in the interest of
Justice."

3. From the substance of the
allegations in the Writ Petition, it is,
however, clear that the petitioner has
assailed the order of the Deputy Director
of
Consolidation,
Azamgarh,
dated
14.01.1976, in so far as it pertains to
Revision nos.428 and 583, last mentioned.
It is also clearly discernible that the
2 All. Thakur Prasad Vs The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
677
further order dated 21.02.1976 passed on
the restoration application made to set
aside the judgment and order dated
14.01.1976, is one that is made on the
application referable to the two Revisions
last mentioned, and not others. It further
requires to be said in order to set the
record straight that pointed reference to
the two Revisions, where the impugned
order dated 14.01.1976 has been passed,
is made on account of the fact that by the
said order the Deputy Director has
disposed of some thirty-two Revisions,
about the rest of which except the two
above mentioned, there is no issue in this
Writ Petition.

4. This Writ Petition was admitted to
the hearing as long back as on 3rd
August, 1976. Notice was sent out on
18.09.1976 returnable on 01.12.1976. A
perusal of the order sheet shows the fact
that between 18.09.76 and 02.02.1993,
that is, a period of about little more than
16 years, the Writ Petition never came up
before the Court; at least, there is no order
scribed on the order sheet between these
two dates. On 22.02.1993, a substitution
application, seeking to bring on record the
heirs of the sole petitioner, who has died
in the meanwhile, was filed. This Writ
Petition, which arises from a chak
allotment
matter,
had
a
host
of
substitution applications, an abatement
application, and, in between, a restoration
application. All these were disposed of on
08.02.2019,
whereafter
decks
were
cleared for hearing. Vide office report
dated 21.02.2019, and reiterated on
07.03.2019, the matter was posted for
final hearing. The said report was
reiterated again on 08.05.2019 and
02.07.2019. On 03.07.2019, the Writ
Petition was heard in a single hearing and
judgment was reserved.

5. Heard Sri Rahul Sripat, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ishir
Sripat, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner and Sri J.N.
Sharma, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3.

6. The proceedings giving rise to
this petition relate to consolidation
operation, and were current in the district
of Azamgarh in the year 1976. The
dispute relates to land situate in Village
Azmatgarh of district Azamgarh. The
petitioner was proposed a single chak by
the Assistant Consolidation Officer, that
included, inter alia, khasra nos.1226(M),
1434(M),
1435(M),
2329(M)
and
1330(M). The petitioner was satisfied
with the said allotment, and did not file
any objection from the proposal. A
number of other tenure holders filed
objections, but none of them related to the
ACO's proposal, vis-a-vis, the petitioner's
chak, 'directly' or 'indirectly', as the
petitioner seeks to plead. The petitioner's
chak is claimed to have become final, and
also confirmed under Section 23 of the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(for short, 'the Act'). No appeal was
carried
from
the
order
or
the
determination made in favour of the
petitioner, as the petitioner would submit.

7. Guru Granth, respondent no.3 is
said to have filed a revision to the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
bearing
Revision
no.428,
impleading
the
petitioner as a party. It is asserted by the
petitioner that notice of this Revision was
not served upon the petitioner, in
consequence of which at the hearing,
neither the petitioner had knowledge or
did he appear or sign the order sheet. It is
further pleaded that Revision no.583 of
was filed by another co-tenure holder,
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sant Kumar. No notice of this Revision
was issued or given to the petitioner, or
did he otherwise acquire knowledge of
these
proceedings.
In
consequence,
neither the petitioner or the learned
counsel could appear at the hearing before
the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is
also asserted in paragraph 3 of the Writ
Petition that at the time of local inspection
made
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation, the petitioner's son was not
present at the place of inspection. It is
also claimed by the petitioner that the
impugned order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, disposing of
the two Revisions, above mentioned,
along with a host of others, has been
passed behind the petitioner's back,
without any opportunity of hearing to
him, and further that by an ex parte
determination done behind the petitioner's
back, he has been given two chaks in the
same sector and a third in another sector.
The total holding of the petitioner is
claimed to be about six bighas. It is
asserted in paragraph 2 of the Writ
Petition by the petitioner that Revision
no.428, filed by Guru Granth, where he
was impleaded as a party, no notice was
issued to him. He did not appear at the
hearing of the Revision, or sign the ordersheet of proceedings, or otherwise had
knowledge. Likewise, it is asserted, that
Revision no.583 filed by Sant Kumar, no
notice was issued to the petitioner, and he
had no knowledge of the proceedings. In
consequence, he or his counsel did not
appear at the hearing of Revision no.583
also.

8. There is an assertion in paragraph
3 of the Writ Petition by the petitioner,
that at the time of inspection done by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation, the
petitioner's son was not present. It is then
asserted that both these Revisions under
reference, one filed by Sant Kumar, and
the other filed by Guru Granth, came to
be
heard
and
allowed
behind
the
petitioner's back. It is said that these
Revisions have been decided without
affording the petitioner any opportunity of
hearing. These assertions regarding denial
of opportunity have been boldly made in
paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the Writ Petition.
It is also asserted that both the Revisions
were allowed, in consequence of which,
the petitioner's chak, as proposed by the
ACO, has been completely altered by the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. The
petitioner has been given bad quality land.
It is also asserted, as already said by the
petitioner, that he has been given two
chaks in one sector, and a third in another
sector. The total land in his hand, after
determination of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, is six bighas.

9. It appears that the petitioner filed
an application for restoration seeking to
set aside the order of the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, dated 14.01.1976 made
in the two Revisions under reference,
primarily on ground that these Revisions
were decided behind his back without
affording him opportunity of hearing, and
that
the
decision
rendered
there,
substantially prejudices the petitioner as
already indicated. The said restoration
application was rejected by the Deputy
Director by means of an order dated
21.02.1976. It is asserted by the petitioner
that the finding recorded by the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
that
the
petitioner was heard in the Revision filed
by Sant Kumar, and that all Revisions
were heard after being consolidated, is
wrong. It is asserted that each Revision
was heard separately as there were
different parties and different plots. It is
2 All. Thakur Prasad Vs The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
679
also asserted that there was no counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite
parties to the restoration application, on
account of which the assertions made in
the restoration application, that was filed
to the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
remained unrebutted at the instance of any
of the respondents here. It is also asserted
that the petitioner's son was not present at
the hearing of the Revision, or at the time
of local inspection, as already asserted.
There
is
a
particular
assertion
in
paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation ordered
that the petitioner be allotted land on his
original holding bearing plot no.1460, but
in the adjustment chart, plot not.1460 has
not been given to him. Instead plot
nos.1660, 1263, 1264, 1266 and 1473,
have been entered in the petitioner's chak,
that are far inferior than plot no.1460. It is
also claimed in the paragraph under
reference that earlier, the petitioner was
given two chaks comprising his original
holding, but now he has been given three
chaks, and these do not carry his original
holding. It is also asserted that Sant
Kumar has been given the best quality
land, whereas his original holding was of
bad quality, mostly. There is an assertion
in paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition that the
Revision filed by Sant Kumar against the
order of the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation, dated 31.10.1974, was
filed on 03.06.1975. It was barred by
time, but the same has been entertained
and allowed, without condoning the delay
in filing the Revision.

10. Of the two respondents, that is to
say, Sant Kumar, respondent no.2 and
Guru Granth, respondent no.3, a counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of Guru
Granth alone. It is an affidavit dated 12th
July, 2009. No counter affidavit has,
however, been filed on behalf of respondent
no.2. Something that requires to be noticed
regarding respondent no.3 evident from the
counter affidavit filed on their behalf, is that
the party described as Guru Granth in
Revision no.428, Guru Granth vs. Naumi
and others, decided by the impugned
judgment and order dated 14.01.1976, is not
a man in flesh and blood. Instead, the party
referred as Guru Granth, is a Math of Guru
Granth Ji Mahatam Swami, represented by
its Mahanth, Mahanth Balak Dass. In the
counter in paragraphs 4, 5 & 6, the
petitioner's assertions that the two Revisions
nos.583 and 428 filed by Sant Kumar and
Guru Granth respectively, have been
decided without notice or opportunity to the
petitioner, have been specifically denied.
The said fact has been refuted with
reference to the findings recorded in the
subsequent order of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, dated 21.02.1976, passed on
the restoration application preferred by the
petitioner. In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder
affidavit, it is asserted amongst other things
that the assertion in paragraph 4 of the
counter
affidavit
about
denial
of
opportunity, has not been specifically
denied in the counter affidavit.

11. Since the question of the two
Revisions being decided vitally affecting
the petitioner's chak without opportunity
of hearing to him as claimed, is a question
that goes to the root of the matter, it is
expedient to deal with and answer the
issue in the first instance. Both, Sri Rahul
Sripat, learned Senior Advocate and J.N.
Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
respondent nos.2 & 3 are firm in their
respective stands about the issue.

12. The Court has considered the
matter and, in particular, perused the
order dated 21.02.1976, which is an order
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation,
on
the
restoration
application preferred by the petitioner,
where the principal ground was denial of
opportunity, and decision of the Revisions
under reference against the petitioner
without notice to him or within his
knowledge. The Deputy Director has
recorded a specific finding with reference
to Revision no.428, that is, the Revision
filed by respondent no.3, Guru Granth to
the effect that the petitioner was issued
notice of the said Revision, the record of
which is appended to the Revision papers.
It has further been recorded that the ordersheet of this Revision has been signed by
the petitioner. A further finding has been
recorded that the petitioner has also been
heard in opposition to the Revision
preferred by the revisionist, Sant Kumar,
even though the order-sheet of that
Revision, does not bear his signatures.
There is a further specific finding
recorded by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, that the petitioner's son
was present at the time of spot inspection.
Now, this Court thinks that the other
contention of the petitioner that the spot
inspection was done by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation in his absence,
particularly of his son, must also be
disposed of here. The contention that the
petitioner was not heard in opposition to
the Revision, is essentially a question to
be answered with reference to record. To
the extent that it cannot be answered with
reference to record, it can best be
answered with reference to personal
knowledge of the Presiding Officer who
heard the matter, or the learned counsel
who appeared in the proceedings. A
perusal of the later order dated 21.02.1976
passed by the Deputy Director shows that
it is an order recorded by Sri Ram Sahai
Lal Srivastava, the then Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Azamgarh. It is the said
Officer who decided the two Revisions
under reference, along with a host of
others by his judgment and order dated
14.01.1976. Thus, the said Officer is in a
pre-eminent position to certify as to
whether the petitioner, in fact, appeared
and was heard in the two Revisions or
not. He has specifically recorded, in his
order dated 21.02.1976, that the petitioner
was heard in both the Revisions. It is also
recorded by him that on the order-sheet of
Revision no.428, the petitioner has
appended his signatures. As regards
Revision no.583 filed by Sant Kumar, the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has
remarked that though he has not signed
the order-sheet, but in fact he was heard
in opposition to the said Revision. There
is no record or evidence to the contrary
filed by the petitioner to show that in fact
he was never served with notice of the
Revision, or that he did not appear at the
hearing of the two Revisions. Though the
assertions by the petitioner are specific
that he did not appear at the hearing of the
two Revisions, but there is not the
slightest evidence to displace the strong
presumption that arises from the contents
of the order dated 21.02.1976 passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation,
both with reference to record and his
personal knowledge, that the petitioner
was heard in answer to the Revisions.
About one of the Revisions as already
said, there are signatures of the petitioner
on the order-sheet. The petitioner has not
said anywhere that the signatures on the
order-sheet of Revision no.428 filed by
respondent no.3, are not his signatures.
The order of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, dated 21.02.1976, was
filed along with the Writ Petition, as one
of the two impugned orders, or as one of
the orders on record. The petitioner was
2 All. Thakur Prasad Vs The D.D.C. Azamgarh & Ors.
681
well aware of the finding there that the
Deputy Director of Consolidation has said
that the petitioner has signed the ordersheet of Revision no.428, but the
petitioner has not asserted or averred
anywhere in the Writ Petition, that those
signatures on the order-sheet are forged,
or in any way not his signatures. The
petitioner has also not said anywhere that
the
findings
in
the
order
dated
21.02.1976, which says that the petitioner
was heard in opposition to the Revision,
has been falsely recorded on account of
some malice of the Presiding Officer
though he has said that the finding that he
was heard in the Revision filed by Sant
Kumar is incorrect. In the absence of
allegations of mala fide against the
Presiding Officer, the presumption of
regularity that attaches to all official
actions, more particularly, when they are
done in a judicial capacity, also attaches
to the remark of the Presiding Officer,
who has certified that the petitioner was
heard in both Revisions.

13. In this view of the matter, there
is no substance in the contention of the
petitioner that he was not heard while
deciding the Revisions under reference by
means
of
impugned
order
dated
14.01.1976.

14. Likewise, the other contention
that the petitioner's son was not present at
the time of spot inspection by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, is also not
acceptable for the singular reason that it
was canvassed before the same Officer
who had gone about the exercise of
inspection, and decided the Revision, but
he did not accept the same. Instead, he
specifically recorded it for a fact in his
order
dated
21.02.1976
that
the
petitioner's son was present during the
spot inspection, whom he met at that time.
This kind of a finding coming from the
pen of the same Officer, who held the
inspection and decided the Revisions
under reference, cannot be disturbed by
this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution.

15. It is no doubt true that the
assertion in paragraph 4 of the Writ
Petition that the Deputy Director of
Consolidation by the orders impugned has
given the petitioner bad quality land, has
not been denied for a fact in paragraph 6
of the counter affidavit. However, in the
assertions made in paragraph 4 of the
Writ Petition, it has not been pleaded with
sufficient precision as to how the land
allotted to the petitioner by the order
impugned, is of poor quality compared to
what was proposed to him by the ACO. It
has also not been averred in the said
paragraph that land allotted by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, is of poor
quality when compared to the petitioner's
original holding, that is comprised of
khasra no.1460. That assertion has figured
in paragraph 7 of the Writ Petition, but in
a different context of limited scope, that
will be dealt with hereinafter.

16. The other grievance of the
petitioner that he has been spread out in
three chaks, instead of two, as proposed
by the ACO, is also not in dispute. The
question is whether on these grounds the
consolidation scheme for the village is to
be disturbed at the instance of the
petitioner by interfering with the same in
these writ proceedings. This Court does
not think so. The framing of a provisional
consolidation scheme and making it final
is a wholesome exercise. It is not
necessary
for
the
Consolidation
Authorities to weigh in golden scales the
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rights of parties when they go about the
exercise of consolidation. All that is
required
to
be
done
is
that
the
fundamental principles that the Act and
Rules lay down, are not violated. The
petitioner has not indicated in the case
that he has taken in paragraph 4 as to
what was the precise valuation and nature
of land that comprised his original
holding and that given to him by the
impugned order. A vague assertion that he
has been given bad quality land, that does
not spell out, in what precise terms that
land is bad when compared with the land
that was his original holding, or the land
proposed by the ACO, is not warrant
enough for this Court to interfere on that
ground. So far as the question that the
petitioner has been placed on three chaks
instead of two as proposed by the ACO, is
in no way illegal, inasmuch as, it is only
when chaks more than three are allotted to
a tenure holder, that prior approval of the
Deputy Director of Consolidation is
required. Even that in the present case,
would not apply as the allotment has been
made here by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation himself. In any case, the
provisions of Section 19(1)(e) of the Act
clearly indicate that allotment of three
chaks to a tenure holder is regarded as
nothing
exceptionable
or
something
which the Consolidation Authorities must
go about with special care. The discretion,
therefore,
exercised
by
the
Deputy
Director of Consolidation on this score,
cannot be faulted.

17. The last submission canvassed
by Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior
Advocate is to the effect that the Deputy
Director of Consolidation has allotted
land to the petitioner on his original
holding bearing plot no.1460, but in the
allotment, plot no.1460 has not been
given to him. Instead, he has been given
plot nos.1660, 1263, 1264, 1266, 1473, all
of which are worse than his original
holding, comprised of plot no.1460.

18. This Court has perused the
impugned
order
which
shows
that
respondent no.2, Sant Kumar has been
given land from the petitioner's proposed
chak, comprising plot no.1334, that is
Sant Kumar's original holding, and to
compensate the petitioner, the said land
that has been taken out from the eastern
part of the petitioner's chak, it has been
ordered that land of equivalent value in
plot no.1460, that is the original holding
of the petitioner, be given. A perusal of
the adjustment chart appended to the
impugned order dated 14.01.1976, shows
in Column 8 that the following plot
numbers have been entered in the three
chaks
of
the
petitioner:
1263(M),
1264(M), 1266(M), 1463(M), 1473(M),
1463(M), 1616(M) and 1462(M). There is
some more area of plot no.1463(m), that
has been entered in the petitioner's chak,
may be in a different chak out of the three
allotted. What is apparent on the face of
record, is that keeping in view the orders
passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation in Revision no.583, filed
by Sant Kumar, the petitioner has not
been given any part of his original
holding in plot no.1460. There is, thus,
clearly
incongruence
between
the
impugned order and the adjustment chart
appended to it, in terms whereof plot
numbers allotted to the petitioner are to be
actually entered in the consolidation
records. To this extent, the submission of
Sri Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate
is well founded that there is incongruence
between
the
impugned
order dated
14.01.1976 and the appended chart where
in the petitioner's chak, the area of land
2 All. Jai Prakash Vs Board of Revenue & Ors.
683
allotted on his original holding, does not
figure in the adjustment chart.

19. In the result, the Writ Petition
succeeds and is allowed in part only to the
extent that the adjustment chart enclosed
to the impugned order dated 14.01.1976
shall be appropriately corrected to bring it
in accord with the order under reference
and include the area of the petitioner's
holding in plot no.1460, as directed in the
substantive part of the order. To this
extent,
the
impugned
order
dated
14.01.1976 stands modified. Costs easy.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 683

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ-B No. 11311 of 1995

Jai Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
Board of Revenue & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.N. Verma, Sri A.B. Paul, Sri A.N. Verma,
Sri A.P. Paul, Sri Anuj Kumar Sharma, Sri
Ashutosh Pandey, Sri B.B. Paul, Dr. H. N.
Tripathi, Sri H.O.K. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C., Alka Srivastava, Sri Anuj Kumar
Sharma, Sri Ashok Kumar, Sri Avadhesh
Kumar Upadhyay, Sri G.C. Sharma, Sri
Kumar Anish, Sri Pradeep Chandra, Sri
Radha Upadhyay, Sri Rohit Upadhyay, Sri
Sankatha
Rai,
Sri
Santosh
Kumar
Srivastava, Sri Syed Wajid Ali, Sri Rohit
Kumar Upadhyay, Sri Pranshu Kaushal, Sri
Jitendra Mohan Sharma
A. Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition &
Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 229 B -
evidence relied by BOR-not relevant to decide
title of parties-findings of first appellate court
could not be set aside-on ground that said
evidence is not considered-BOR exceeded its
jurisdiction u/s. 331(4) r/w s.100 CPC.

Held: - There was no perversity in the
findings
of
the
first
appellate
court
empowering the Board of Revenue to interfere
in the said findings exercising its powers under
Section 331(4) of the Act, 1950 read with
Section 100 CPC.

Writ Petition allowed (E-8)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

The application was filed in the
Court on 3.4.2019 and was taken on
record.

Office is directed to grant regular
number to the application.

The application has been filed to
record the word 'deceased' before the name
of Smt. Santosh Sharma referred as
petitioner no. 2/1 in the application and the
wife of the deceased petitioner no. 2 - Mr.
Manjul Kumar Sharma and also to record
the fact that Sri Manish Sharma, the son of
deceased petitioner no. 2 referred as
petitioner no. 2/2 in the application is the
heir and legal representative of Smt.
Santosh Sharma and is already on record.
The array of parties in the memorandum of
writ petition reveals that Smt. Santosh
Sharma was not substituted in place of
deceased petitioner no. 2 and only Sri
Manish Sharma, i.e., the son of petitioner
no. 2 was substituted in his place as
petitioner no. 2/1.

In view of the aforesaid, the application
is misconceived and is dismissed.