Dismissal of a revision petition against a deceased party without allowing substitution of legal representatives undermines substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota (Division), Kota whereby, while dismissing the Revision Petition No.6/2018 preferred by the petitioners, the order dated 21.04.2017 passed by the Additional District Collector, Baran in Case No.2/2015 dismissing the revision petition filed against the patta dated 10.12.2001 issued by the Nagar Palika, Chhabra in favour of Shri. Abdul Salam having been filed against a dead person, has been dismissed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the Nagar Palika, Chhabra issued a patta dated 10.12.2001 in favour of Shri. Abdul Salam-the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents no.3/1 to 3/5 which was assailed by the petitioners by way of a revision petition filed under Section 73 (2) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for brevity, "the Act of 2009") before the Additional District Collector, Baran.

3. Therein, the petitioners filed an application dated 18.05.2018 to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased-non- petitioner no.3-Shri. Abdul Salam. However, while dismissing the application, the revision petition was also dismissed by the Additional District Collector, Baran vide order dated 21.04.2017 having been filed against a dead person. The revision petition preferred there-against by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota vide order impugned dated 08.03.2021.

4. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revisional authority erred in dismissing the revision petition without appreciating that they have filed an application for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased-respondent no.3-Shri. Abdul Salam. He submits that in view of filing of the application, the revision petition could not have been dismissed on account of having been filed against a dead person. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order impugned dated 08.03.2021 be quashed and set aside and the revision petition be restored its original number.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents no.3/1 to 3/5 submitted that the revisional authority has committed no error in dismissing the revision petition.

6. Heard. Considered.

7. Indisputably, immediately after filing of the revision petition, the petitioners have filed an application dated 18.05.2018 for taking on record the legal representatives of deceased-respondent no.3-Shri. Abdul Salam. By presuming that it was unbelievable that the petitioners did not have knowledge of the death of Shri. Abdul Salam prior to filing of the revision petition, not only the application; but, also the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2017 which was upheld by the Divisional Commissioner, Kota vide order impugned dated 08.03.2021 without appreciating the material on record. Since, the application for substitution of the legal representatives was filed immediately after filing of the revision petition instead of dismissing the application as also the revision petition on technicality, the application should have been allowed to advance the substantial justice and to decide the matter on its merit in view of the settled legal principle.

8. In view thereof, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

9. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 08.03.2021 as also the order dated 21.04.2017 are quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioners for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased-respondent no.3-Shri. Abdul Salam stands allowed and the revision petition is restored to its original number.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.