HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8291 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Mohd. Talib Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 10. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent nos. 3 to 8 have filed an application under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, for correction of map in respect to Gata No. 148/2-4-12, situated in Village - Ram Nagar Athgawan, Pargana and Tehsil - Sadar, District - Pratapgarh before the District Magistrate, Pratapgarh. During pendency of the case, respondent no. 3 - Lalta Prasad died on 19.11.2019 and after four years an application for substitution was moved on 28.12.2023, which was allowed by means of order dated 16.11.2024. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 16.11.2024, had filed revision before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj which has also been rejected by means of order dated 28.01.2025 and accordingly, in the present writ petition orders dated 28.01.2025 and 16.11.2024, have been assailed. 4. Only ground urged by the petitioner is that while moving application for substitution there was delay of four years, but same was not accompanied by any separate application for delay condonation and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Salik Ram Tiwari, Arti Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Ram Prasad .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner (Administration), Prayagraj Mandal, Prayagraj And Others .....Respondent(s) accordingly the Additional District Magistrate has erred in condoning the delay and allowing the substitution application. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has submitted that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable but the principles enunciated in the CPC would certainly be applicable. It is submitted that after death of Lalta Prasad an application for substitution was filed belatedly and in the application itself reasons for delay were mentioned which have been condoned by the trial Court and accordingly, they have not committed any error by allowing the said application and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is noticed that the petitioner had objected to the substitution application before the trial Court and his objections were duly considered and rejected. In the application itself it was stated that after death of Lalta Prasad, he was to be substituted by his legal heirs i.e. son and wife and legal heirs could not communicate this fact to their counsel who was prosecuting the case and as soon as he was informed about death of Lalta Prasad, he moved an application for substitution. 8. The aforesaid facts were duly considered by the trial Court and found that delay in moving application for substitution was not intentional and accordingly held that applicants were entitled for condonation of delay and hence allowed the application after imposing cost of Rs.200/-. 9. The revisional Court also considered the aforesaid facts and found that in the interest of justice, delay has been condoned and accordingly rejected the revision. 10. Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that litigant before the consolidation authorities and revenue Courts are poor farmers who have little or no knowledge of the legal process and are assisted only by the Advocates appearing before the revenue Courts. 11. This Court also take cognizance of the fact that all the provisions of WRIC No. 8291 of 2025 2 CPC are not strictly applicable upon such proceedings and in the present case, in the application for substitution the facts and grounds for delay in filing the same were mentioned, which facts were adequately considered by the trial Court. It is not the case where application for substitution did not contain any reason explaining the delay in filing the said application and once it is found that reasons for delay were mentioned in the application itself, it would be sufficient compliance for delayed application for substitution. 12. The trial Court has duly considered the reasons for delay and recorded its satisfaction and condoned the delay, which is sufficient legal compliance for condoning the delay and allowing the application for substitution. 13. Accordingly, this Court do not find any error has been committed either by the trial Court or by the revisional Court in allowing the application for substitution after imposing cost. 14. In view of above, no ground for interference in the impugned orders is made out. 15. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. September 8, 2025 A. Verma WRIC No. 8291 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench