Orders against deceased individuals are null and void if legal heirs are not substituted and natural justice principles are violated.

JUDGMENT :

Irshad Ali, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.7.1998 contained in Annexure-2, order dated 26.3.1993 contained in Annexure-3, the order dated 27.2.1986 contained in Annexure-4, the part of the order dated 7.12.1991 passed by the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and also the revised notice dated 28.2.1983 and the entire proceedings after summoning the original from the opposite parties.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not the implement the order dated 14.7.1998, 19.1.1998, 26.3.93, 27.2.86 and 7.12.1991 and also not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question and also not allot the same to any one.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of interim mandamus commanding the opposite parties not the implement the order dated 14.7.1998, 19.1.1998, 26.3.93, 27.2.86 and 7.12.1991 and also not to dispossess the petitioners from the land in question and also not allot the same to any one.

(iv)...

(v)..."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the prescribed authority declared 21.7.33 acres of land as surplus vide order dated 27.2.1986. Against the said order, an appeal was filed, wherein stay was granted vide order dated 19.5.1986. Thereafter, the appeal was allowed and the prescribed authority was directed to decide the issue afresh vide order dated 7.12.1991.

4. A revised notice was issued on 28.2.1983 under Section 10 (2) of the Act. On 26.3.1993, an order was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich in Case No.751/35/34 under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Vide order dated 19.9.1995, an order was passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Division, Faizabad in Ceiling Appeal No.497/ Bahraich ( Nakchhad Prasad Vs. State of U.P. ).

5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders and inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and also the action of the District Revenue Authorities by which they have proceeded to take possession and allot the same. The impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is nullity as it has been passed against a dead person. The said order is also without jurisdiction as no order on merit could be passed unless, the legal heirs of the deceased party are substituted and brought on record, besides the same is also in violation of principles of natural justice. The order passed by the prescribed authority is also contrary to the provision of Section 4 -A of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holding Act and thus, the same are also illegal and invalid. The respondent No.1 has proceeded arbitrarily to exercise the jurisdiction and power upon an application moved for recall of ex-parte order by rejecting it but substituting the petitioners, although the said order was passed against a dead person, vide an order dated 14.7.1998. The certified copy of the orders dated 14.7.1998, 19.1.1998 and 26.3.1993 are enclosed as Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. 6. In response to a notice issued under Section 10 (2) of the Act, the petitioners' father filed an objection before the prescribed authority, stating therein that he had no surplus land and also mentioned detailed facts t