JUDGMENT
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. By means for this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 25.7.1989, passed by respondent No. 1, in Land Acquisition Case No. 122 of 1980.
2. Heard earned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The impugned order dated 25.7.1989, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in Land Acquisition Case No. 122 of 1980, shows that said case is pending under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It appears, that claimant Rajmata Premlata Devi died during the pendency of said proceedings, on 22.11.1986. The petitioner Maharaja Virendra Singh, claiming himself to be stepson of late Rajmata Premlata Devi, moved an application No. 54A, before the aforesaid Court for his substitution in the case. The application was supported by affidavit 55C. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, appear to have raised objections vide application No. 57C, before the Court of III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, and filed the objection, and it was pleaded that the application for substitution is barred by time. After hearing the parties, the lower court rejected the Application No. 54A, holding the same to be barred by time, as the same was moved much after the period of limitation on 26.7.1988.
4. This Court, in its writ jurisdiction cannot enter into the factual aspects or controversy, whether the petitioner Maharaja Virendra Singh was step son of late Rajmata Premlata Devi or not? During the pendency of this petition, Maharaja Virendra Singh has died and his heirs are substituted in the writ petition.
5. The only legal question before this Court is, whether, the respondent No. 1 has committed error of law in rejecting the substitution application, or not?
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5, drew attention of this Court to the principle of law laid down in Ram Pyari v. Union of India , and argued that the court below has committed no error of law, in the aforesaid case. The Delhi High Court has held that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are applicable to the land acquisition proceedings. That being so, if the substitution application is not made within time, the court below can reject the application, if the same is barred by time. But, in view of the principle of law laid down in Sardar Amarjeet Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta (2003) 3 SCC 276, which also pertains to the land acquisition case of similar nature, the Apex Court has held that the procedural law in the matters of substitution should be construed as a flexible tool to do effective and substantial Justice, between the parties. In said case also, the substitution application in land acquisition case, was not moved within time. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in aforesaid case, though, provisions of Order XXII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to the land acquisition case, the application for substitution No. 54A deserved to be considered and disposed of, for substitution of legal representatives, keeping in view the substantial justice required to be done, between the parties.
7. In these circumstances, without expressing any opinion as to whether Maharaja Virendra Singh (since deceased) was or was not, a step son of late Rajmata Premlata Devi, this Court is of the view that the court below should re-consider the application, keeping in view the substantial justice required to be done, between the parties. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 25.7.1989, passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 122 of 1980, is quashed with the direction that the court below shall re-hear the parties concerned, after permitting the present petitioners No. 1/1 to 1/4, to be substituted in place of Maharaja Virendra Singh to pursue said application, and decide the same afresh. In view of the fact that the land acquisition case pertains to the year 1980, and is an old case, this Court further directs that the court below shall hear the matter as expeditiously as possible, and shall dispose of the case preferably, within a period of six months. (All pending applications in this petition also stand disposed of).