ORDER : B.B. Mangalmurti, J. Both these appeal arises out of the judgment dated 26th February, 2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1883 of 2003 by the learned Single Judge. The writ-petitioner-Laxmi Sao sought direction upon the respondents 2-4 being the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (Central Coalfields Limited), General Manager (Land & Revenue Department), Central Coalfields Limited and the Project Officer, Central Coalfields Limited asking them to show as to why neither compensation in lieu of acquisition of his land nor employment to the petitioner's son as per the policy decision of the Central Coalfields Limited has been granted. The petitioner also sought a declaration that the appointment of respondent No. 5 Loki Mahto (appellant in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2009) is illegal having been obtained in a wrongful manner. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment quashed the appointment of respondent No. 5 and directed the official respondents to pay compensation and also employment in accordance with the Land Loosers Scheme applicable since the acquisition was of more than two acres. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director was directed to depute a responsible officer to hold an enquiry and to fix the responsibility against the officers involved in illegally setting up respondent No. 5 as a bogey to replace the genuine owner of the land. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) was awarded on the respondents to be paid to the petitioner. Both the Central Coalfields Limited and its officials and the private respondent No. 5-Loki Mahto being aggrieved have preferred these appeals against the impugned judgment. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants have at the outset brought to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner-Laxmi Sao had died on 21st August, 2004 itself during the pendency of the writ petition and had not been substituted till the writ petition was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 26th February, 2009. It is further pointed out that though an application for substitution of the petitioner was made through I.A. No. 1925 of 2004 filed on 14th September, 2004 by the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner named at Para 3 therein but the application was never pressed and the legal heirs of the deceased writ-petitioner were never substituted in the original writ petition. The writ petition was decided in favour of a dead person though it had abated without his formal substitution after his death on 21st August, 2004 itself. The writ petition was decided in favour of a dead person though it had abated without his formal substitution after his death on 21st August, 2004 itself. The appellants thereafter being aggrieved preferred the instant appeals and upon prayer made through I.A. No. 95 of 2010 in L.P.A. No. 147 of 2009 vide order dated 9th March, 2010, the legal heirs and representatives of the writ-petitioner/respondent No. 1-Laxmi Sao have been substituted. Though such a prayer has also been made in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2009 preferred by the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition/appeal herein through I.A. No. 984 of 2010, but the said interlocutory application has not been formally allowed and still pending. It is submitted that in those circumstances though the appellants have sufficient grounds to press the appeal on merits but since the impugned judgment is a nullity in the eye of law being delivered in a matter which had already abated, the same deserved to be set aside. 3. Since the legal heirs of the deceased writ-petitioner/private-respondents have already been formally allowed in L.P.A. No. 147 of 2009 earlier by this Court, the prayer made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2009 for his substitution through I.A. No. 984 of 2010 is also being allowed. 4. Office to carry out the substitution of the deceased-respondent Laxmi Sao in the array of the parties in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2009. 5. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/respondent in both the appeals has laboured to impress that there was no lack of diligence on the part of the legal heirs in seeking substitution of the deceased-petitioner as the prayer for substitution was made within the period of limitation through I.A. No. 1925 of 2004 immediately after death of the writ-petitioner on 21st August, 2004. However, the formal substitution of the writ-petitioner could not be allowed before the matter was finally decided by the learned Single Judge on merits. The adjudication has been made on merits after considering the rival stand of the parties as born from the pleadings on the record who are now also before this Court in appeal. The legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner have also been substituted in one of the appeals. Therefore, the appeal may itself be decided on merits on the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. 6. The legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner have also been substituted in one of the appeals. Therefore, the appeal may itself be decided on merits on the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. 6. We are however not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner/private-respondents herein. On the death of the writ-petitioner on 21st August, 2004 during pendency of the writ petition much before the passing of the impugned judgment on 26th February, 2009 the writ petition itself had abated in the eye of law in the absence of formal substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased-petitioner. Mere filing of an application for substitution without pressing it and formal substitution having been allowed by the order of the Court, in effect would not amount to the writ petition having revived in the eye of law when the matter was finally decided. There were no other petitioners in the writ petition in the presence of which the writ petition was heard and decided. The writ petition therefore had abated and the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge was in a matter which was not alive. It is not a case where the writ-petitioner had died after passing of the impugned judgment and before filing of the Letters Patent Appeal. It is also not a case where the death of the petitioner or any of the parties had occasioned during pendency of the instant appeal. In the instant matter the only writ-petitioner had died without being substituted before the final adjudication was made on merits by the learned Single Judge. Reliance may be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Lal & Ors. v. Yamuna Das Sharda (Dead) Thr. LRS. in Civil Appeal No. 2283 of 2017 in similar circumstances. 7. In the aforesaid background facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment was delivered in a writ petition which had already abated. The impugned judgment is therefore set aside. 8. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge. It is open for the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-petitioner to seek substitution of the original writ-petitioner before the learned Court and pursue the matter on merits thereafter. The appeals are accordingly allowed on the limited point without entering into the merits of the matter in any manner. 8. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge. It is open for the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-petitioner to seek substitution of the original writ-petitioner before the learned Court and pursue the matter on merits thereafter. The appeals are accordingly allowed on the limited point without entering into the merits of the matter in any manner. All issues on facts and law are left open to be decided afresh. Since the writ petition is of the year 2003, the same may be listed before the appropriate Bench under the appropriate heading if possible in the next month itself.