SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No.1752 of 2014 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. K.S. Mehta, Additional C.S.C. for the State/petitioner. 2. Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for respondent no.1. 3. It was contended by learned counsel for respondent no.1 that during pendency of the present writ petition respondent no.1-Ganga Singh died on 23.11.2014. 4. This writ petition arose out of the proceedings under U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1972) , wherein respondent no.1-Ganga Singh was proceeded to be evicted from the land allegedly held by him as unauthorized occupant. 5. Learned counsel for the State wants to bring the legal representatives of respondent no.1 on record. 6. This Court is of the opinion that no substitution can be made in the proceedings arising out of the Act of 1972 for eviction of unauthorized occupant. 7. Learned counsel for the State sought several adjournments to satisfy this Court that as to whether substitution application would lie or not. 8. Today learned counsel for the State has relied upon Section 13 of the Act of 1972, which is reproduced as under:- “13. Liability of heirs and legal representatives.– - (1) Where any person against whom any proceeding for the determination of arrears of rent for the assessment of damages is to be or has been taken dies before the proceeding is taken or during the pendency thereof, the proceeding may be taken or as the case may be, continued against the heirs or legal representatives of that person.” 2 9. From bare perusal of Section 13 the liability of heirs and representatives is only to the extent of arrears, rent and damages if assessed by the learned Prescribed Authority. Here in the case in hand, no such liability is assessed. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court since the legal representatives of respondent no.1 are also said to be in unauthorized occupation of the aforesaid land, through his father, therefore, the State is free to draw fresh proceedings against the legal representatives of respondent no.1. 11. In such view of the matter, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of merit. 12. The writ petition is closed accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.01.2026 SK