Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr Ram Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr Q M Haq, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.
(2.) BRIEF facts are that vide order dated 21.3.1984, name of Surya Kala, opposite party No. 3 was mutated and the said order was assailed by the Petitioner in an appeal under Section 210 Land Revenue Act which was allowed by the Appellate Authority, by means of judgment and order dated 30.8.2000 and the matter was remanded for deciding it on merits, after giving full opportunity to the affected persons. Subsequently, by an order dated 4.2.2002, name of the Petitioner was mutated and the name of Surya Kala was cancelled. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 3 filed restoration against the order dated 4.2.2002 and by the order dated 27.2.2002, the Naib -Tahsildar, recalled the order dated 4.2.2002 and the fixed the case for 14.3.2002 to which the Petitioner had also filed an application for recalling the order dated 27.2.2002 and the Naib -Tahsildar vide orders dated 14.3.2002 allowed the application of the Petitioner and recalled the order dated 27.2.2002. Being aggrieved, the opposite party No. 3 filed a revision under Section 219 Land Revenue Act and the Revisional Court, on the date of filing of revision itself, heard the matter on merits and decided the same and remanded the matter for deciding it afresh, in view of the fact that certain evidence has to be led by the respective parties, with regard to the respective claims in the property in question. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that no notice was issued to the Petitioner by the Revisional Court and the Revision has been allowed on the date of filing itself. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 17.4.2008. Thereafter, an application for recall of the order was filed. After filing of the recall application, it was also rejected vide order dated 12.1.2010 and as such, another application has been preferred by the learned Counsel for the applicant for restoring the writ petition to its original number as well as recalling the orders passed on the application for recall which was listed today. As sufficient cause has been shown by the counsel for the applicant, the orders dated 17.4.2008 and 12.1.2010 are recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number.
(3.) DURING the course of hearing, it has been pointed out that the sole Petitioner died and as such, an application for substitution has been moved bringing on record the legal heirs of the Petitioner. As the Petitioner died and as such, there was no necessity for issuing notices to the legal heirs.;