HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1556 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Faiz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. As per the office report, notices to respondent nos. 5 & 6 have been served and no one has put in appearance on their behalf. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the the dispute pertaining to Gata No. 1284 area 0.69 Acre at V9llage Parasarai, District Gonda was pending before the District Magistrate U/S 126 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act when one of the respondents, namely, Nankana was reported to have died. On receipt of the said information the petitioner had moved an application for substitution and the same was allowed on 07.06.2022. During pendency of the said proceedings, Shyam Manohar, the plaintiff had died on 15.02.2023 and after the application for substitution was allowed, the petitioner carried out the correction in the memo of the record and as per the application of the petitioner his legal heirs, namely,, Rakesh Tripathi, Santosh, Ramesh Chandra S/o Shyam Manohar were to be substitued along with Tara Devi widow. Instead of name of father of the plantiffs, namely Kedar Nath was substituted. 4. When the case was listed on 12.08.2024, the court noticed the aforesaid descrepancy found that it is a defect in carrying out the order dated 07.06.2022 and held that the petitioner has not complied with the order dated 07.11.2023 and dismsised the application and further the Court Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Faiz Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Santosh Kumar And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) found that the petitioner has not complied with the previous order dated 07.11.2023. 5. In the order dated 07.11.2023, the petitioner was directed to effect service on the newly impleaded party and the petitioner not having taken steps, the petition was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has fairly stated that though the application for substitution was allowed on 07.11.2023 but not carrying out such substitution, the name of Kedar Nath, the father of the deceased was substituted rather than his legal heirs and without giving any opportunity to make necessary corrections the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 has been passed dismissing the application of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted that though it was not pleaded but in case an application for extension of time had been filed then even service could not have been effected on the newly substituted party and submits that without giving adequate opportunity the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected. 8. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition but does not dispute the aforesaid facts. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that undoubtedly there have been certain lapse on the part of the petitioner in compliance of the direction of the trial court but it is noticed that merely because there has been an error in substituting the legal heirs and wrong name has been substituted, the trial court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to make necessary corrections and in case even when the time was prescribed the petitioner failed to comply with the directions certainly the application was liable to be rejected but without giving any opportunity merely rejecting his application on noticing the descrepancey in carrying out the substitution cannot entail the consequences of rejection of his application considering that the same is a curable defect. 10. Apart from above, this Court finds that the petitioner has not effected service on the proposed legal heirs of the deceased-respondent, namely, Nankau, the Court has opined, he has not complied with the directions WRIC No. 1556 of 2025 2 dated 07.11.2023 and on this ground also rejected the application. Subsequently the petitioner had filed a revision against the order dated 12.08.2024 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration-II), Devi Patan Mandal who has also rejected the same by means of order dated 01.01.2025 and in the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged both the orders namely, 01.01.2025 and 12.08.2024. This Court finds that the court could have considered the application for extension of time. 11. In the aforesaid circumstances, though there have been certain lapses on the part of the petitioner but the aforesaid lapse could not have resulted in rejection of his application at the very outset proceeding without giving him an adequate opportunity. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that adequate opportunity was not given to the petitioner to cure the defects and therefore the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.08.2024 is set aside along with order dated 01.01.2025 passed by revisional authority. 12. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate. The petitioner shall make necessary corrections in the memo of the application after serving a copy of the proposed legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and respondent (Nanku). In case the petitioner complies with the aforesaid directions, the District Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law. December 11, 2025 Ravi/ WRIC No. 1556 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench