- (1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 25-07- 1989, passed by respondent No. 1, in Land Acquisition Case No. 122 of 1980.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The impugned order dated 25-07- 1989, passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Land Acquisition Case No. 122 of 1980, shows that said case is pending under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It appears, that claimant Rajmata Premlata Devi died during the pendency of said pro ceedings, on 22-11-1986. The petitioner Maharaja Virendra Singh , claiming him self to be stepson of late Rajmata Premlata Devi, moved an application No. 54-A, before the aforesaid court for his substitution in the case. The appli cation was supported by affidavit 55-C. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, appear to have raised objections vide application No. 5/- C, before the court of III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, and filed the objection, and it was pleaded that the application for substitution is barred by time. After hearing the parties, the lower court rejected the application No. 54-A, holding the same to be barred by time, as the same was moved much after. the period of limitation on 26-07- 1988. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction cannot enter into the factual aspects or controversy, whether the petitioner Maharaj Virendra Singh was step son of late Rajmata Premlata Devi or not ? During the pendency of this petition, Maharaja Virendra Singh has died and his heirs are substituted in the writ peti tion.
(3.) THE only legal question before this Court is, whether, the respondent no. 1 has committed error of law in reject ing the substitution application, or not? Learned counsel for the respond ent No. 5, drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Ram Pyari Vs. Union of India, reported in A. I. R. 1978 Delhi pg. 129 (Full Bench), and argued that the court below has committed no error of law, in the afore said case. The Delhi High Court has held that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that of Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are ap plicable to the land acquisition proceed ings. That being so, if the substitution application is not made within time, the court below can reject the application, if the same is barred by time. But, in view of the principle of law laid down in Sardar Amarjeet Singh Kalra Vs. Pramod Gupta, reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases pg. 276, which also pertains to the land acquisition case of similar nature, the Apex court has held that the procedural law in the mat ters of substitution should be construed as a flexible tool to do effective and sub stantial justice, between the parties. In said case also, the substitution applica tion in land acquisition case, was not moved within time. In view of the law laid down by the Apex court in afore said case, though, provisions of Order 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to the land acquisition case, the application for substitution No. 54-A deserved to be considered and dis posed of, for substitution of legal repre sentatives, keeping in view the substan tial justice required to be done, between the parties.;