WPMS No.717 / 1998 (Old No.) Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. A. V. Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. S. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 to 7 on the Restoration Application No.196/2011. There is a delay in filing the restoration application. Perused the delay condonation application No.2430/2011. Cause shown for the delay in filing the restoration application is sufficient. The Delay Condonation Application / CLMA No.2430/2011 is allowed. The delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. Perused the restoration application. Cause shown in the restoration application is sufficient. The Restoration Application is allowed. The order dated 24.02.2010, by which the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, is recalled. Also heard on the merits of the case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court finds that respondent no.4 & 8 have died several years ago and an opportunity to substitute the heirs of respondent nos.4 & 8 was granted to the petitioner as far back in the year 2009, inspite of which, no substitution application has been filed. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition against respondent no.4 & 8 stands dismissed as abated. The present proceeding arises out of allotment of chak under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1960. Respondent nos.4 & 8 were granted a chak pursuant to the impugned orders. Since the writ petition has been dismissed against them as abated, the court is of the opinion that the writ petition against the other contesting respondents cannot continue in as much as any order passed by this court modifying the impugned orders would adversely affect the rights of the respondent nos.4 & 8 and their heirs. Since I have already dismissed the writ petition against respondent nos.4 & 8, the court is of the opinion that the entire writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 14.12.2011 LSR