- (1.) SIBGHAT Ullah Khan,J. List revised. No one appears for the contesting respondents.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 4.10.2001 and 18.7.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur in Revision No.3/45 of 1997, Daya Shanker vs. Kaushalya Devi. It is contended that some land was allotted to the petitioners by the Gaon Sabha. Smt.Kaushalya Devi, mother of respondent no.3 Smt.Shyama Devi, and respondent nos.4 to 7 filed an application for cancellation of the patta through which land was allotted to the petitioners. The said patta was cancelled. Against that order the petitioners filed revision no.3/45 of 1997. During the pendency of the revision Smt. Kaushalya Devi died, hence the petitioners filed an application for substitution of her daughter Smt.Shyama Devi. Through the first impugned order dated 4.10.2001 the substitution application was rejected on the ground that it was filed after about one year. Through the second impugned order dated 18.7.2002 revision was dismissed as abated.
(3.) IT is mentioned in the first impugned order that the substitution application was filed after 263 days of the death, while the limitation is 90 days. The death occurred on 23.6.2000. The limitation of 90 days to file substitution application applies to the suits and appeals and not to the revisions or writ petitions. However, the substitution application should be filed within reasonable time. The revisional court has rejected the substitution application on the ground that it was barred by time. The view taken by it is erroneous in law. Moreover, the other three complainants were there in the revision and in the matter of complaint for cancellation of patta, strictly speaking, no right is inherited by the successor of the complainant.;