In both the writ petitions along with their respective Interlocutory Applications, common and identical issues of fact and law are involved. Therefore, with consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, both the matters were heard together at great length and are being disposed of together by this common judgment/order.

2. Both the writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arise out of consolidation proceedings under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (in short “Consolidation Act”).

3. In C.W.J.C. No. 2864 of 1984, altogether 7 petitioners have assailed the validity and correctness of the order dated 9.3.1984 passed in Revision Case No. 174 of 1979, as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Patna, allowing the claims of the private respondents with respect to the lands under dispute. Similarly, in C.W.J.C. No. 10390 of 1993, altogether ten petitioners have assailed the validity and correctness of the order dated 9.7.1993 (Annexure-3) passed in Revision Case No. 984 of 1989 by the respondent Joint Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarpur, allowing the claims of the contesting private respondents with respect to the lands under dispute.

4. In both the writ petitions, either some of the petitioners or/and some of the respondents have died during the pendency of the main writ petitions. Therefore, separate interlocutory applications in the nature of substitution petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases.

5. In C.W.J.C. No. 2864 of 1984, Interlocutory Application No. 6042 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners stating therein that during the pendency of the main writ petition, petitioner no.2 Most. Brij Kumari died on 21.1.2003, petitioner no. 3 Parsuram Roy died on 29.7.1995, petitioner no.4 Jagarnath Roy died on 5.10.1987, petitioner no. 5 Raj Bans Roy died on 19.2.2012, petitioner no.6 Kailash Roy died on 20.9.1987, petitioner no. 7 Jag Narain Roy died on 2.7.1987, respondent no. 5 Ramayan Upadhya died on 29.7.2011, respondent no. 6 Sheo Bachan Upadhya died in the year 2002 (specific date of death not disclosed), respondent no. 7 Karesan Upadhya died in the year 1996 (specific date of death not disclosed) and respondent no. 9 Deo Sakal Upadhya died in the year 1995 (again specific date of death not disclosed), leaving behind them their respective heirs and legal representatives, fully detailed in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application No. 6042 of 2012 in different paragraphs. The aforesaid Interlocutory Application was filed on 11.9.2012.

6. In C.W.J.C. No.10390 of 1993, Interlocutory Application No. 8578 of 2010 was filed on 28.9.2010 stating therein that during the pendency of the main writ petition, petitioner no.1 Jage Rai died on 13.3.2008, petitioner no.2 Jaibir Rai died on 3.1.1998, petitioner no.3 Yogendra Rai died on 12.9.2005, respondent no. 12 Saukhi Rai died on 30.8.2009 and respondent no. 17 Kalpat Devi died on 21.4.2008, leaving behind them their respective heirs and legal representatives, who have been fully detailed in the aforesaid Interlocutory Application No. 8578 of 2010 in different paragraphs.

7. From the averments made in the aforesaid two Interlocutory Applications with respect to the aforesaid two writ petitions, it is apparent that steps for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives with respect to some of the deceased petitioners and/or some of the deceased respondents were not taken within a reasonable period of time, and, in fact, in some of the cases for a long period of about 20 to 25 years. In that view of the matter, an objection has been taken by the respondents in both the cases that in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Puran Singh Vs. State of Punjab ((1996) 2 SCC 205), the prayer for substitution made on behalf of the petitioners or the prop