Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 934 (PAT)

Haji Shekh Yusuf @ Sk. Yusuf v. State of Bihar

2013-08-02

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
Birendra Prasad Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. In the present proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity and correctness of order dated 22.12.1988 (Annexure-6) passed in Land Settlement Case No. 34 of 1988-89 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Araria, as also the order dated 31.12.1988 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, whereby proposal for settlement of Gairmazrua land in favour of private respondent Nos. 5 to 8, being landless persons, has been affirmed. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the contesting respondent no. 6 passed away, which has been noticed by a Bench of this Court by an order dated 7.11.2008. On the request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the matter was adjourned not only on 7.11.2008 but even thereafter on several occasions, yet, as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has fairly conceded that till date no substitution petition has been filed for substituting the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 6. 4. By an order dated 14.9.2011 passed by a Bench of this Court, four weeks’ peremptory time was granted for filing an appropriate substitution petition, but even that order has not been complied with. On account of non-compliance of peremptory order dated 14.9.2011, the writ petition stood dismissed against the contesting respondent No. 6. 5. In view of death of respondent No. 6 more than five years ago and in view of the fact that no substitution petition has been filed by the petitioners till date despite peremptory order dated 14.9.2011, the present writ petition has become incompetent and cannot proceed further. 6. It is well settled that there cannot be contradictory orders against a dead person and surviving person in one particular lis. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.