HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1005594 of 2005 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. I.A. No.5 of 2025 - Application for condonation of delay l. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the application is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the delay in filing substitution application is hereby condoned. CMA No.104270 of 2017 - Application for substitution 1. This writ petition was filed against an order passed by the revisional court, by the petitioner who died on 14.08.2009. Thereafter, the applicant came to file the substitution application stating therein that he is legal representative, therefore, he may be substituted in the writ petition in place of the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Begum Sabiha Kamal, Pashu Pati Pratap Singh, Rita Singh Counsel for Respondent(s): C.S.C., R.N. Gupta Madho Ram @ Madho .....Petitioner(s) Collector Sitapur And 2 Ors. .....Respondent(s) 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant purchased the land through registered sale deed executed on 06.01.2004. At the said time, the petitioner was alive and has made execution of sale deed in favour of the applicant. 3. Against order under Section 122-B, an order was passed on 30.09.2005, which was challenged in the revision by the State which was contested by the petitioner, which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 4. The applicant was neither party in the revision nor has filed any petition before any forum to agitate his rights. 5. In view of fact that the petitioner has died on 14.08.2009, the applicant moved this application for substitution as legal representative relying on the judgment in the case Misc. Single No.717 of 2005; Smt Siya Dulari Vs. Additional Commissioner, Lucknow and 4 Ors dated 07.09.2012 that he may be legal representative to be substituted in case he contested the matter before the lower courts. 6. It is admitted case of the applicant that after death of the petitioner he never raised any objection at any forum nor has claimed his right being legal representative in the matter. 7. The applicant being legal representative of the petitioner can challenge the order of revisional court in a writ petition. It cannot be said that the applicant was not aware about the orders passed by the authorities who have passed order under Section 122 B or the order passed by revisional court. This application has been filed after much time of death of the petitioner, therefore, WRIC No. 1005594 of 2005 2 the substitution application filed on the basis of legal representative cannot be entertained at this stage, therefore, the application is rejected. Order on Writ Petition 1. In view of reasons recorded above, the writ petition is dismissed as abated. 2. However, the applicant, if so aggrieved, may file a writ petition before this Court. November 27, 2025 Adarsh K Singh WRIC No. 1005594 of 2005 3 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench