The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed a land acquisition appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, ruling that an appeal preferred against a deceased respondent is a “nullity” and “non-est” in the eyes of the law. Justice Sandeep Jain held that the provisions of Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which pertain to the substitution of legal heirs, cannot be invoked if the respondent was already dead at the time the appeal was filed.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a land acquisition reference (L.A.R. No. 46 of 1991) titled Uday Bhan (Deceased) through legal heirs vs. State of U.P. through Collector, Mau. On March 31, 2018, the Additional District Judge & Judge Land Acquisition/FTC-II, Mau, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre to the landowners.
When the State failed to pay the compensation, the landowners initiated execution proceedings (Execution Case No. 5 of 2019). During these proceedings, one of the decree-holders, Kailash Singh, passed away on June 27, 2021. His legal heir, Kuwar Prakash Singh, was substituted in the execution case on August 27, 2021. Despite being aware of these developments, the State filed the present appeal (First Appeal Defective No. 221 of 2022) on September 9, 2022—more than a year after Kailash Singh’s death—naming the deceased as a respondent.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant (State of U.P.): The State sought the condonation of a 1516-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the time taken to obtain permission from higher officials. Regarding the death of the respondent, the State contended that it only became aware of the death after an abatement application was filed by the respondent’s heirs on September 16, 2025. It subsequently filed a substitution application on September 24, 2025, claiming it was within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge.
The Respondents (Landowners): Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the State was fully aware of the death through the execution proceedings and a counter-affidavit filed earlier in the High Court. They submitted that the State remained “grossly negligent” and that the appeal, having been filed against a dead person, had already abated.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court observed that the State had been negligent in pursuing its remedy. It noted that the executing court had even attached the State’s treasury account in 2021 to satisfy the decree, and the State was well aware that Kailash Singh had died prior to the filing of the appeal.
Justice Sandeep Jain emphasized the legal status of an appeal filed against a deceased individual, stating:
“It is apparent that the appeal of the State filed against dead respondent, is a nullity and non-est. The conduct of the State, debars it from getting any relief from this Court.”
The Court cited the High Court of Calcutta in State of West Bengal vs. Manisha Maity and others (1963), which established that while Order XXII Rule 4 applies to respondents who die during the pendency of an appeal, it has no application if the appeal was “still born” because the respondent was already dead.
The Court also referenced the Delhi High Court’s decision in Ravinder Dabas vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023):
“An appeal filed against a dead person is clearly not maintainable and is a nullity… The provision of Order XXII Rule 4 CPC will apply only in a case when a party dies during the pendency of the proceedings.”
The Decision
The High Court dismissed the abatement and substitution applications filed by the State as legally not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as a nullity. The Court affirmed the judgment and award of the Reference Court dated March 31, 2018.
Case Details:
- Case Title: State of U.P. vs. Uday Bhan (Deceased) And Another
- Case No.: First Appeal Defective No. 221 of 2022
- Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain
- Date: April 1, 2026
