IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6558 of 2006 NASEERUDDIN, SON OF LATE WAZID HUSAIN, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MANPUR, GOPALGANJ ROAD, P.S. BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA. 3. THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, GAYA. 4. THE SURVEY SETTLEMENT OFFICER, GAYA. 5. NANDA DAS, SON OF LATE JAMUNA DAS 6. MADHO DAS SON OF LATE JAMUNA DAS 7. RAGHUNATH DAS SON OF LATE JAMUNA DAS, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA MANPUR GOPALGNAJ ROAD, P.S. BUNIYADGANJ, DISTRICT GAYA. ----------- 04. 15.04.2011 Re : I.A. No.2861 of 2011 It appears during the pendency of the writ petition sole petitioner left for heavenly abode on 6.12.2008 leaving behind his wife Haseena Khatoon as his heir and legal representative which is indicated in paragraph-1 of the interlocutory application. 2. Let the name of sole petitioner be expunged from the records and his wife Haseena Khatoon be substituted in his place. 3. I.A. No.2861 of 2011 is, accordingly, disposed of. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also considered the order dated 8.8.2000, Annexure- passed by the Survey Superintendent, Gaya in Appeal Case No.1021 of 1992, whereunder the appeal filed against the order dated 17.8.1991 passed in Objection Case No.451 of 1990 has been allowed ex parte against the petitioner. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from 2 perusal of the entire order sheet of Appeal Case No.1021 of 1992, Annexure-1 it will appear that order no.1 entertaining the said appeal case was passed on 2.2.1999 and the appeal was disposed of under order dated 8.8.2000. In between 2.2.1999-8.8.2000 the appeal notice was never served on the husband of the petitioner(Haseena Khatoon) who was respondent no.2 in the said appeal. It is further submitted that from perusal of the service report kept in the office of the appellate authority, it will also appear that husband of the petitioner was never served any appeal notice in connection with the said appeal. Respondent nos.5 to 7 herein and appellants of Appeal Case No.1021 of 1992 failed to prosecute the said appeal on 8.12.1999 the appeal was dismissed for default under order dated 8.12.1999. From the order sheet it will appear that after 8.12.1999 no appeal notice was served on the husband of the petitioner, as such, without service of notice on him the impugned order dated 8.8.2000 could not have been passed allowing the appeal. 6. This matter has remained pending in the High Court for more than four years and if notice is issued to confirm the aforesaid fact from respondent nos.5 to 7, it is likely to take some more time. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, it is deemed expedient to direct the petitioner to appear before the Survey Superintendent, Gaya and highlight the submissions noted above before him and if the Superintendent is satisfied that the submissions noted above are correct and borne out from the order sheet maintained in connection with Appeal Case No.1021 of 3 1992, copy whereof is contained in Annexure-1 to this application, he shall issue notice to private respondent nos.5 to 7 and after their appearance shall not only recall the order dated 8.8.2000 passed in the aforesaid appeal case but shall also hear the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law. It is made clear that if there is any deliberate attempt by respondent nos.5 to 7 to avoid service in compliance of this order the Survey Superintendent, Gaya shall proceed to effect service through substituted service by taking steps for publication of notice in two leading newspapers of the area. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)