Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1475 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sudhakar Rao Getha Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 21 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh,Tejas Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2/1 to 5/2.
The grievance of the petitioner is that substitution applications dated 16.8.2017 and 12.2.2020 have been allowed by order dated 17.3.2021 without considering the objections filed by the petitioner.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 17.3.2021 matter was fixed for hearing on the correction application moved on behalf of the revisionist against the order dated 16.12.2020 and on the recall application, dated 8.1.2021 moved on behalf of the contesting respondent (petitioner herein). After hearing both the parties, the Board of Revenue (respondent no. 1) has recalled the order dated 16.12.2020, but simultaneously allowed the substitution applications dated 16.8.2017 and 12.2.2020 without considering the objections raised by the petitioner. It is further submitted that both the aforesaid substitution applications were time barred and all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased have not been brought on the record.
Per contra learned counsel for the respondent/caveator states that order dated 17.3.2021 is passed after hearing both the parties. There is no ambiguity and error in the order impugned passed by the respondent no. 1. It is further contended that substitution applications dated 16.8.2017 and 12.2.2020 have legally been allowed. Respondent no. 1, in positive exercise of jurisdiction, has rightly allowed the substitution application, therefore, delay, if any, is deemed to be condoned. It is further contended that even assuming that any heir and legal representative of the deceased is left to be brought on the record, would not fatal to the merits of the case, inasmuch as, judgment binds the estate and not the individual. It will be presumed that impugned order has been passed against all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased.
Be that as it may, no useful purpose would be served to keep this matter pending, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to finally decide the instant writ petition without making any observation on the merits of the case. Petitioner has an alternative remedy to move an appropriate application before the respondent no. 1 for redressal of his grievance as mentioned in present writ petition. At this stage, I do not find any justification to entertain the present writ petition against the impugned order dated 17.3.2021 passed by respondent no. 1.
The present writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms, as mentioned above, without any protection as prayed for.
Order Date :- 7.10.2021 Ravi Prakash