Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4176 Court No. - 6 Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 248 of 2024 Applicant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector/ D.M. Hardoi Opposite Party :- Kumari Kaneez Fatima (Dead)Thru. Smt. Seema Zaidi And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. C. M. Application No.1 of 2025 for condonation of delay. 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Chief Standing counsel in support of application for review. 2. Office has reported that instant review application has been filed with a delay of more than one year and eight months. Learned counsel for the applicant has produced copy of the judgment of this Court passed in Writ C No.60806 of 2017 decided on 16.3.2020 where this Court has observed that no time limit has been fixed under the High Court Rules for filing review application for exercise of inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or for exercising the power of review in writ proceedings. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the application for review is deemed to be filed within time. The application is, therefore, allowed. The delay is condoned. Order on memo of the application. 1. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Chief Standing counsel in support of application for review. 2. The supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. 3. It has been submitted that the State had filed a writ petition bearing Writ C No.3003584 of 1982 assailing the order dated 29.4.1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Hardoi, who had in turn rejected the appeal in exercise of the powers under Section 13 of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. It is stated that during pendency of the said writ petition, opposite party No.1 died and an application for substitution was filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that on the date of hearing learned Standing counsel appearing for the State could not point out with regard to pendency of aforesaid application and without deciding the application for substitution the Court proceeded to hear the matter on merits and dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 3rd March, 2023. He has further submitted that he has again sought to re- agitate the grounds raised before the Writ Court pertaining to bonafide of the sale deed. 4. This Court has considered the arguments of the petitioner. It is noticed that even though an application for substitution was filed but this Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has proceeded to dismiss the writ petition without disposing off the application for substitution and it could not be indicated by the petitioner as to how the petitioner would be adversely affected by not considering or allowing the application for substitution of respondent No.1. 5. Firstly, it is found that it was the duty of the petitioner to have pressed application for substitution which was not pressed before this Court and even otherwise it could not be shown that the petitioner has been prejudiced in any manner due to non consideration of the application for substitution. 6. In a writ proceeding, validity of order dated 29.4.1982 passed by Additional District Judge, Hardoi was assailed before this Court and only the argument of the petitioner were duly considered and on due consideration of the arguments raised by learned Standing counsel the writ petition was decided on 3.3.2023. Accordingly, we do not find that there has been any miscarriage of justice or that the petitioners have been prejudiced or adversely affected by not allowing the application for substitution. The reasoning which has been submitted before this Court is that it would be difficult to implement the order of Additional District Judge, Hardoi without the substitution being made. Needless to say that writ petitions is not a continuation of the appellate proceedings and in case any such death of any of the parties has occurred it is always open for the petitioner to move appropriate application before the court concerned. 7. The second ground raised is with regard to bonafide of the sale deed which aspect has been fully considered on merits by this Court in the said judgement and order in paragraph 10 on- wards where it has been found that there was sufficient matterial on record in the form of the evidence of Area Lekhpal to come to conclusion that the respondent No.1was the real owner of the disputed land despite the fact that the same was purchased from her brother. In the review application re- agitating the issues which have been decided cannot be permitted and accordingly for the reasons aforesaid we do not find any requirement to entertain the instant review application or allow the same. No other ground was urged. 8. In view of the above, the application for review is bereft of any merit and is accordingly rejected. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 22.1.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench