Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13579 of 2005 With Interlocutory Application No. 5405 of 2012 And Interlocutory Application 5403 of 2012 ====================================================== Lal Mohan Mandal, son of Shree Darogi Mandal, resident of Village Kajha, Police Station Krityanand Nagar and District Purnia. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus
Legal Reasoning
before this Court in the case of Sukh Bilas Roy & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) wherein after considering large number of judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court as also of a Division Bench judgment of this Court, I have concluded that if steps for substitution are not taken within a reasonable period of time of three years, then the prayer for substitution cannot be allowed and the respondents cannot be compelled to contest their 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2005 (3) dt.27-08-2013 4 / 4 claim, which has become final in their favour on account of
Arguments
1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Purnia 3. The Additional Collector, Purnia 4. Smt. Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Shri Harish Chandra Choudhary 5. Shri Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, son of Shri Harish Chandra Choudhary 6. Shri Praveen Choudhary, son of Shri Harish Chandra Choudhary 7. Shri Shashi Shekhar Choudhary, son of Shri Harish Chandra Choudhary 8. Shri Krishnanand Choudhary @ Shri Krishna Kumar Choudhary, son of late Munshi Choudhary Nos. 4 top 8 residents of Village Kajha, Police Station Krityanand Nagar and District Purnia ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, Advocate Mr. Binay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, A.C. to PAAG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 27-08-2013 The present proceeding under Article 226 of the 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2005 (3) dt.27-08-2013 2 / 4 Constitution of India arises out of a proceeding under Section 48E of The Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 ( in short ‘B.T.Act’). 2. Claim of the petitioner under section 48E of the B.T.Act with respect to the lands under dispute was allowed by an order dated 18.7.2000 (Annexure-4) passed in Batai Case No. 46 of 1989-90/165 of 1999-2000 by the respondent D.C.L.R., Sadar, Purnia and the petitioner was declared under-raiyat over the lands under dispute. Appeal preferred by the landlord against the aforesaid impugned order dated 18.7.2000 has been allowed by the impugned appellate order dated 7.4.2005 (Annexure-5) passed in R.A. Case No 75 of 2000 by the respondent Additional Collector, Purnia in purported exercise of his powers under Section 48F of the B.T.Act. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, sole petitioner Lal Mohan Mandal died on 27.4.2007 leaving behind him his heirs and legal representatives, fully detailed in paragraph No.3 of Interlocutory Application No. 5405 of 2012, who have filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Application seeking their substitution in place of the original petitioner Lal Mohan Mandal. Aforesaid Interlocutory Application No. 5405 of 2012 was filed on 22.8.2012. In the whole of the Interlocutory Application they have not stated anywhere that they had no knowledge or information about the pendency of the main writ petition filed by the deceased petitioner Lal Mohan Mandal. 4. Interlocutory Application No. 5403 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of the aforesaid applicants for condonation of limitation in filing the substitution petition. In fact, Interlocutory Application No. 5403 of 2012 was also filed on 22.8.2012 itself. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State of Bihar and its functionaries has opposed the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.13579 of 2005 (3) dt.27-08-2013 3 / 4 prayer for substitution made in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application No. 5405 of 2012. It is contended that in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab [ (1996) 2 SCC 205] and in view of ratio laid down by this Court in an unreported judgment dated 16.7.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2864 of 1984 [Sukh Bilas Roy & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.], prayer for substitution cannot be allowed after such a long delay of more than 5 years. 6. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court finds that after death of original writ petitioner Lal Mohan Mandal on 27.4.2007, steps were not taken by the applicants for their substitution in the present proceeding within a reasonable period of time of 3 years. In fact, both the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications have been filed after five long years on 22.8.2012. A legal right has already accrued in favour of the private respondents, in view of abatement of writ petition on account of the death of sole petitioner in the year 2007, which should not be lightly interfered with in a mechanical manner merely on asking by the applicants after such a long delay of more than five years, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of Punjab (Supra). 7. An identical issue came up for consideration
Decision
abatement of the writ petition. 8. As already noticed above, sufficient cause has not been shown by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased petitioner for condonation of such delay. They have not uttered a single word that they had no knowledge or information about the pendency of the writ petition. If they had no knowledge or information about the pendency of the present writ petition, then a period of 3 years was a long period for taking steps for filing an appropriate substitution petition, which has not been done in the present case. 9. For the reasons recorded above, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab (Supra), as also the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Sukh Bilas Roy & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.( Supra), prayer for substitution made by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased petitioner cannot be allowed at this belated stage. 10. Consequently, Interlocutory Application Nos. 5405 of 2012 and 5403 of 2012 are hereby rejected. As a result thereof, the writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed as having abated. 11. However, if the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased petitioner are so advised, they may file a fresh petition under section 48E of the B.T.Act before the prescribed authority for their declaration as under-raiyats with respect to the lands under dispute, which shall be decided in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)