HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 1003201 of 2012 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. C. M. Application No.14 of 2025- for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application on behalf of the petitioner. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The cause shown in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient. The application is allowed. 3. The delay in filing the substitution application is condoned. C. M. Application No.15 of 2025 for substitution of opposite party No.s 6. 1. The cause shown is sufficient. 2. The legal heirs of respondent No.6 have been duly served and represented by their counsel Sri Ratnesh Singh. The application is allowed. 3. The petitioner is permitted to carry out the substitution of opposite party No.6 as opposite party No.s 6/1 and 6/2 in the memo of the petition during course of day. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pt. D.R. Shukla, Kaushal Mani Tripathi, M.K. Singh, S.K. Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C, A.P. Singh Vatsa, Jitendra Kumar Singh, Pranav Mishra, Rahul Kumar Shukla, Ratnesh Singh, Vijay Prakash Srivastava Raksha Ram .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Board Of Revenue And Ors. .....Respondent(s) Order on memo of the petition. 1. Heard Sri Kaushal Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel on behalf of respondent No.s 1 to 5. 2. By means of the present petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 14.10.2011 passed by Board of Revenue in revision case No.1752 (L.R.) 2009-10. 3. It has been submitted that the dispute in the present case pertains to succession of recorded tenure holder, namely Badri. It is stated that he was survived by his brother Guru Prasad. In the said proceedings the matter was decided by Board of Revenue by means of order dated 3.3.2010 at the behest of the petitioner, who has approached the Board of Revenue challenging order dated 29.2.2008 passed by Additional Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda. The revision preferred by the petitioner was allowed and the impugned appellate order dated 29.2.2008 was set aside and the impugned order passed by Parganadhikari dated 14.6.2001 was upheld. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 3.3.2010 Ranno Devi i.e. opposite party No.6 preferred an application for review. In the application for review it was stated before the appellate authority that an application for substitution was made for substituting the deceased Guru Prasad by his widow Bitto Devi. The said application was moved on 1.4.1989 and the same was allowed by the appellate court on 2.4.1989. After expiry of more than two and half years anther application was given by the petitioner which was considered on 30.10.2000 and the application seeking to substitute Guru Prasad which was filed on 1.4.1989 was rejected and while the application preferred by the petitioner was allowed on 23.9.1991. 5. It was contended on behalf of opposite party No.6 that the appellate court has committed manifest error of law in allowing the application of the petitioner in as much as once the application for substitution filed to substitute Bitto Devi in place of Guru Prasad was allowed then no further orders can be passed with regard to the said application and even subsequently when the application for substitution was filed by the WRIB No. 1003201 of 2012 2 petitioner the same could have been allowed but the previous application of Bitto Devi could not have been rejected and consequently the appellate authority has misdirected itself and on this ground has sought to review the previous orders passed by Board of Revenue. 6. The Board of Revenue duly considered the arguments made on behalf of Ranno Devi i.e. opposite party No.6 and concurred with the said argument holding that once the application for substitution was allowed and Bitto Devi, the widow of Guru Prasad, was substituted in place of Guru Prasad nothing further could have been done with regard to the said application. While allowing the application of the petitioner the previous application dated 1.4.1989 could not have been rejected and in this view of the matter allowed the application for review and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the matter. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner arguing the said matter could not assail the impugned order or justify as to how the application, by which Bitto Devi was sough to be substituted, could have been rejected. 8. This Court also after examining the impugned order is of the considered opinion that once the application for substitution is allowed, nothing further remains to be decided regarding the said application. In case, the petitioner sought to contest the said case, it was open for him to move appropriate application for impleadment and the same could have been considered and decided by the the appellate court but the appellate court could not have reopened or passed fresh orders on the application or impleadment which has already been allowed by means of order dated 6.4.1989. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order dated 14.10.2021 passed by Board of Revenue. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 10. In case, the proceedings are still pending before the appellate court the same deserves to be decided, expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the appellate authority in accordance with law. WRIB No. 1003201 of 2012 3 11. The office is directed to communicate this Court to the appellate court forthwith. September 25, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 1003201 of 2012 4 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench