CourtKutchehry.com
High Courts

Daya Shanker and another vs Additional Commissioner and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 14 March 2011 · Citation: (2011) 03 AHC CK 0238

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 198(4), 333
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 42622 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 374 words

Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

1.

List revised. No one appears for the contesting respondents.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3.

This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 4.10.2001 and 18.7.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur in Revision No.3/45 of 1997, Daya Shanker vs. Kaushalya Devi. It is contended that some land was allotted to the petitioners by the Gaon Sabha. Smt.Kaushalya Devi, mother of respondent no.3 Smt.Shyama Devi, and respondent nos.4 to 7 filed an application for cancellation of the patta through which land was allotted to the petitioners. The said patta was cancelled. Against that order the petitioners filed revision no.3/45 of 1997. During the pendency of the revision Smt. Kaushalya Devi died, hence the petitioners filed an application for substitution of her daughter Smt.Shyama Devi. Through the first impugned order dated 4.10.2001 the substitution application was rejected on the ground that it was filed after about one year. Through the second impugned order dated 18.7.2002 revision was dismissed as abated.

4.

It is mentioned in the first impugned order that the substitution application was filed after 263 days of the death, while the limitation is 90 days. The death occurred on 23.6.2000. The limitation of 90 days to file substitution application applies to the suits and appeals and not to the revisions or writ petitions. However, the substitution application should be filed within reasonable time. The revisional court has rejected the substitution application on the ground that it was barred by time. The view taken by it is erroneous in law. Moreover, the other three complainants were there in the revision and in the matter of complaint for cancellation of patta, strictly speaking, no right is inherited by the successor of the complainant.

5.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The substitution application filed before the revisional court is allowed.

6.

As no one has appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents in this writ petition, hence the learned Additional Commissioner before proceeding further in the revision shall issue notice to the opposite parties in the revision as well as to Smt. Shyama Devi. It is needless to say that the Additional Commissioner must decide the revision on merit.