HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - B No. - 11032 of 1982 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J. Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation / Substitution Application Nos.9 & 10, both of 2021. 1. Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The instant applications have been filed to substitute the legal heirs of deceased sole petitioner and respondent nos.4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Vakalatnama of the proposed heir-Raj Kumar Rastogi of deceased sole petitioner is taken on record. 4. The reason for condonation of delay mentioned in the affidavit is satisfactory. Delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. 5. Let the word 'deceased' be mentioned against the names of deceased sole petitioner, respondent nos.4, 6, 8, 9 and 10 and the names of legal heirs of petitioner and respondent nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 & 10 as mentioned in the substitution application be substituted accordingly. In respect to respondent no. 11 & 12 only word deceased is to be mentioned. 6. The applications are, accordingly, allowed. Re: Civil Misc. Withdrawal Application No.17/2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Gupta, Durgesh Kumar Sinha, Ram Sheel Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amitabh Agarwal, Archana Hans, Dr. Vinod Kumar Rai, L.S.Srivastava, Sandatha Rai Lal Mani .....Petitioner(s) Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Others .....Respondent(s) 1. Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The instant withdrawal application has been filed on behalf of petitioner no.1/1-Raj Kumar Rastogi, supported by an affidavit, with the prayer that the instant writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn as the parties have entered into compromise outside the Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the instant writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn as the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court which is not objected by Ms. Archana Hans, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. 4. In view of the averments made in the withdrawal application as well as arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the application is allowed. 5. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Order on Writ Petition 1. In view of the order passed on the aforementioned withdrawal application, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. April 17, 2026 C.Prakash WRIB No. 11032 of 1982 2 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad