jjil SSiS Auai ^ljj^ Ulj^ aaaa.ts. EctaaBaa A2 J ri. ,&-at^.a&i?EEi2jLQS .BG.' Off i^. ..l''1'. ^ ."< ^ ^ .-^ ^ PEtUSXMEy. . 'HaE'a.K.Lsiaaa s»of .aaaa Prasad SaBu, aged siaoiit 3'1 years, resaflent of Bazar Wara, BaLada. Bazar, P.S,Balo<3aBazar,-3;Eiusil BalodaBazap, Ea.s'tn.c't, aiaasw. ? EA S SS dSroSDEfflS i^)-. lcse S-tefce of Madiya't'ra!a]eSfl toro.ugB CblleQtor,'' daapur. _ , ' -2.1:'ueBoard of ^evaiae il.P. Gwalior •. j. |^ 3. MuLcuaaa. ssa of Snci Faras flaa S.ingBi, aged about; 60 years, i-tadait of Bazac Ward, Baloaa Bazai*, P.S. Baloda Bazar, £aasilBaloda Bazar,. QLstE'iet " iia.ipur, • .. - • ^ PgI^'EfflS TOucR ArtXi.CiLiS 226/227 Qi? fflE OBSEUIUEGia Qi? MXtLa., • l,l ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition No.3063 of 1994 Petitioner Respondents versus Harikishan The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) and others Present: • Shri Bharat Rajput, counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Sangeeta Mishra, Panel Lawyerforthe State/respondent No.1 No one appears for respondent No.3. Writ PetitionjjnderArtrcJe 226^27 ofthe Constitution of India '^ ORAL ORDER 7th (Passed on 7"' September, 2010) Heard. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenueon 10-7-1992 (Annexure P-6). 3. The petitioner purchased lands bearing plots No.67, 68 and 69 (part) by sale-deed dated 1-4-1982. His application for mutation was considered and the petitioner made a statement before the Sub- Divisional Officer that he has not purchased plot No.68. The Sub- Divisional Officer directed him to submit a corrected sale-deed. He preferred a revision before the CQllector. The revision was dismissed on 19-2-1991 (Annexure P-4). He again preferreda revision before the Additional Commissioner, which was allowed by order dated 1 7- 7-1991, however, the Board of Revenue, by the impugned order, »^s^x allowed the revision preferred by Mulchand/respondent No.3 herein (since deceased) and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was set aside. 4. During pendency of this writ petition, respondent No.3 died on 14-12-1995. The petitioner has moved I.A.No.2 for recording the names of legal representatives without mentioning the date of death. I.A.No.2 was filed on 3-7-2009. Date of knowledge of death of respondent No.3 was not mentioned in this application. I.A.No.4 was moved on-,7-9-2010 for condonation of delay in filing the application forrecording the names of legal heirs of Mulchand. In I.A.No.4, it is stated that the petitioner had no knowledge of requirement of law (i? impleading the legal heirs. The petitioner submits that the death was informed to the earlier counsel in the High Couri: of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, however, an applicatiorf could not be filed. It has also beenstated in paragraph 6. of the application that the petition itself was repeatedly dismissed for non- prosecution about 5-6 times and he kept on changing his Advocate. 5. There is delay ofabout 15 years in moving the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of respondent No.3 Mulchand. 6. In Puran Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1996 SC 1092, it has been held that even if by virtue of Article 141 ofthe Constitution of India, the provisions contained in the Code ofCivil Procedure,1908 are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Order 22 of the Code of "^ Civil Procedure, 1908 is, thus, not applicable to the writ proceedings, ••/ ^^ "'^ ^. 1 -'icSW «• &6 i^ '•.sf'an it does not mean that the petitioner or the appellant in such writ petition or writ appeal can ignore the death of the respondent ifthe right to pursue remedy even after death of the respondent survives. It has also been held therein that after the death of the respondent, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner or the appellant to substitute the heirs of such respondent within a reasonable time and that for the purpose of holding as to what shall be reasonable time, the High Court may take note ofthe period prescribed under Article 120 ofthe Limitation Act for substituting the heirs of the deceased/defendSSit or the respondent. It has further been held that even if an application is filed beyond 90 daysof the death of such respondent, the Court can take into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case for the purpose of condoning the delay in filing the application for substitution of the legal representatives. 7. In the present case, respondent No.3 died on 14-12-1995. Ttle writ petition, challenging the order passed by the Board of Revenue on 10-7-1992, was filed after more than two years, i.e., on 25-8-1994. The matter was pending in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur for a period of almost six years thereafter till 31- 10-2000, when the matter stood transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh after formation of the State and constitution of this Court on 1-11-2000, in this High Court also, the petitioner did not move the application immediately but has submitted the same after about 10years. There is no satisfactory explanation forthe delay in moving the application for substitution of legal heirs of the •^ y ,4 Gopal deceased/respondent No.3 for a period of 5 years in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and thereafter fora period of 10 years in this Court. On the petitioner's own showing, the writ petition was dismissed in default on many occasions. Thus, the petitioner was negligent in moving the application for substitution of legal representatives. The reason explaining the delay in moving the application is not bona fide and, therefore, is not acceptable. 8. Consequently, I.As.No.2 and 4 are dismissed. As a consequence, the.writ-petition is dismissed as abated. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^•t- '^