Allahabad High Court Raps UP Govt For Filing Appeal Against Dead Person Instead Of Legal Heirs
The Allahabad High Court has recently dismissed a highly belated first appeal filed by the State of U.P. against a dead person, without impleading any of his legal heirs. Observing that State's delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned merely because permission to file appeal was obtained late, Justice Sandeep Jain held,“...there was gross negligence on the part of the State in preferring...
The Allahabad High Court has recently dismissed a highly belated first appeal filed by the State of U.P. against a dead person, without impleading any of his legal heirs.
Observing that State's delay in filing appeal cannot be condoned merely because permission to file appeal was obtained late, Justice Sandeep Jain held,
“...there was gross negligence on the part of the State in preferring this appeal, which was filed against dead respondent, and not bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased respondent Kailash Singh for more than three years, inspite of knowledge, for which there cannot be any plausible explanation because for bringing on record, the legal heir of deceased respondent, no permission of higher officials of the State was required.”
State filed an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reduction of compensation with a delay of 1516 days. Though the decree was passed in 2018, the State claimed that permission to file the appeal was granted in 2022, thereafter the appeal was filed. State also claimed that only after abetment applications were filed in 2025, did the State became aware of the fact that the respondent had died.
Counsel for respondent's heirs submitted that the State kept delaying the payment of compensation despite execution proceedings and ultimately the account of the State was attached. It was also stated that in reply to the delay condonation application, the heirs had stated that the respondent had passed away, still no substitution was made by the State.
The Court observed that the legal heirs had filed an affidavit before the executing Court that the landowner had died and the legal heirs were substituted in the execution proceedings. It observed that despite knowledge, the State failed to substitute the legal heirs in the proceedings before the High Court. It held that despite knowledge, it was the legal heirs who had to move an abetment application instead of impleadment/ substitution application being filed by the State.
Holding that the appeal against a dead person in non-est and nullity, the Court held
“In view of the above facts, the abatement application of Kuwar Prakash Singh and the substitution application of the State along with delay condonation application are dismissed, being legally not maintainable because the appeal was filed against dead respondent Kailash Singh. Had he died after the filing of appeal, then, abatement and substitution application were legally maintainable. The appeal having being filed against dead respondent, was itself not legally maintainable, which was non-est, as such, no question of condoning the delay, in its filing arises.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal against the deceased and affirmed the impugned order.
Case Title: State of U.P. v. Uday Bhan (Deceased) And Another