High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sanjay Kumar v. Dy. Director Of Consolidation, Siddharth Nagar & Others - WRIT - B No. 7638 of 2007  RD-AH 2375 (13 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7638 of 2007
Sanjay Kumar ....Petitioner
Deputy Director of Consolidation & others .... Respondents.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J
Heard counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 1.8.2006 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation.
In proceedings under section 12 CH Act , one Ram Achal died on 16.8.2004. An application was filed by the petitioner on the basis of Will for substituting themselves in place of deceased Ram Achal. Another application filed by the respondent No. 3 Ram Chandar to be substituted claiming brother of the deceased. The Consolidation Officer allowed application of both petitioner as well as respondent No.3 by his order dated 12.8.2004. A revision was filed by the petitioner challenging the substitution of respondent No.3. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision and directed that original records be returned to the Consolidation Officer.
The learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that respondent No. 3 being living at Nepal has lost his rights and ought not have been substituted. He submits that by virtue of the Will the petitioner is only heir of deceased Ram Achal. He further contends that by order impugned the Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed that only Ram Chandar be substituted which amounts to setting aside the order of substitution in favour of the petitioner.
I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 12.8.2004 allowed the substitution of both the petitioner's as well as Ram Chandar. The revision was filed against the order dated 12.8.2004 by the petitioner alone. The revisional Court by the impugned order dated 1.8.2006 dismissed the revision. The effect of the dismissal of the revision was that order which was impugned in the revision remain intact meaning thereby that substitution of both the petitioner's and respondent No. 3 survived. It is well settled that substitution of parties to represent the estate of deceased is only for the purposes of prosecuting the case. When two persons are substituted who claim conflicting interest the decision title or final adjudication of their rights is not done at the stage of allowing substitution rather the same is done when the case is finally decided. Substitution of both petitioner's and respondent No. 3 does not in any manner decide the inter se dispute between the parties. From the records it is clear that the respondent No. 3 has challenged the Will in favour of the petitioner and all the question as to who will succeed the estate of Ram Achal deceased shall be gone into by Consolidation Officer in pending proceedings. Thus the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the revision has not affected the substitution of petitioner which was already done by the Consolidation Officer and as stated by the counsel for the petitioner no revision was filed by Ram Chandar against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.8.2004.
With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.