An appeal filed against a deceased respondent is invalid and non-maintainable; the failure to timely substitute legal heirs precludes delay condonation.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP JAIN, J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Abatement Application No.9 of 2025

1. This application has been filed by Kuwar Prakash Singh the legal heir of deceased respondent no.1/1 Kailash Singh on the ground that Kailash Singh has died on 07.06.2021 and its information was also given to the appellant-State in the counter affidavit filed to the delay condonation application of the appellant, a copy of which was received by the State on 02.02.2024 but still the substitution application was not moved by the State within the prescribed period of limitation. It was further submitted that when the substitution application was not moved by the appellant, then this abatement application was filed on 16.09.2025 for abating the appeal and then substitution application along with the condonation of delay has been filed by the State on 24.09.2025. Learned counsel submitted that from the above facts, it is apparent that there was deliberate delay on the part of the appellant in not bringing on record the legal heir of deceased respondent Kailash Singh which cannot be condoned, keeping in view the conduct of the appellant.

Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.2 of 2022, Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.10 of 2025, Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.11 of 2025 & First Appeal

1. According to office report, the instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 1516 days on 09.09.2022.

2. The instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been filed by the State for reduction of compensation awarded by the Reference Court through judgment and decree dated 31.03.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge & Judge Land Acquisition/FTC-II, Mau in L.A.R. No.46 of 1991 [Uday Bhan (Deceased) through legal heirs vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Mau] whereby a compensation @ Rs.2,00,000/- per acre has been awarded to the land owners along with other statutory benefits admissible under the Act.

3. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the delay in filing the appeal occurred because permission was sought from the higher officials and only after obtaining permission, the appeal was filed. Learned counsel submitted that ultimately the permission was granted by the State on 19.05.2022 for filing this appeal, thereafter, this appeal has been filed with delay on 09.09.1992. Learned counsel submitted that since the permission from the State was obtained with delay, as such, the delay in filing the instant appeal be condoned and thereafter, the appeal be decided on merits.

4. It was further submitted that only after filing of abatement application on 16.09.2025, the appellant became aware that the respondent Kailash Singh has died, as such, the substitution has been filed within the period of limitation, from the date of knowledge, on 24.09.2025. It was submitted that there is no delay in filing the substitution application, and if there is any delay, then it be condoned, and the application be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent land owners submitted that the award of the Reference Court was passed on 31.03.2018 but when the State did not pay the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court then the land owner was compelled to file execution proceeding, which was numbered as Execution Case No.5 of 2019 (Kailash Singh and others vs. State of U.P.), in which the District Government Counsel(D.G.C.) remained present, who from time to time sought adjournment in the matter, which was granted by the executing court. Learned counsel further submitted that when the State failed to pay the compensation th