- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.
(2.) Facts in brief of the present case are that before Deputy Director of Consolidation, in a proceeding under Section 48 (2) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, two revisions, namely, Revision Nos.152/228/408 and 935 were filed, allowed by order dated 01.10.1993, the said authority has allowed the revisions and thereafter the chaks in pursuance to the said order have been altered between Badri and Ram Sanehi/petitioner. As during the intervening period from the date of passing of the order dated 01.10.1993 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and filing of the present writ petition challenging the same, Badri died. So his sons, namely, Ram Shanker and Ghasi Ram have been impleaded as opposite party nos.2 and 3 by the petitioner while challenging the order dated 01.10.1993 in the instant matter.
(3.) On 24.02.2012, this Court has passed an order reads as under : - "Heard learned counsel for the parties. This is an application for substitution of the legal heirs of opposite party no.2, Ram Shanker moved after the delay of about 15 years. The information in regard to the death of opposite party no.2 came on record on 22.3.1996, but in spite of that no steps were taken by the petitioner to substitute the heirs of opposite party no.2. There is enormous delay in moving the substitution application and the delay has not been properly explained in moving the application. A false pretext has been set up that the papers were handed to the earlier counsel and he did not move the application in time. It is a common practice that such defences are set up when there is enormous delay and blame is shifted to other counsel. In the aforesaid circumstances, the application is rejected and the writ petition abates against the opposite party no.2. List the petition after two weeks." ;