ONKAR NATH Vs. RAJ DEO AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises before us is of the interpretation of Sec. 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which is to the effect that

(2.) Sec. 11 by sub-sec. (1) lays down that the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall prepare a statement containing certain particulars and by sub-sec. (2) it lays down that

(3.) After hearing counsel we have no hesitation in saying that 31st March, 1957, was the date of publication of the statement within the meaning of Sec. 12 and that the period of limitation for the objection commenced on it. Sec. 12, clearly lays down that the limitation runs from the date of publication of the statement, and all that the court has to determine is on what date the statement was published. Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 11 requires in all three acts to be done, (1) publishing the statement, (2) publishing a notice inviting objections and (3) serving a copy of the notice on each tenure-holder. There are two things to be published, the statement and a notice; they are required to be published simultaneously, but none the less they are two publications. Publication of the statement, therefore, is distinct from publication of a notice and the period of limitation has been made to run from the date of publication of the statement. It is immaterial that on account of a notice having been published simultaneously with the statement that would also be the date of publication of the notice, but what the court has to consider under Sec. 12 is the date of publication of the statement and not that of the notice. In this case a notice was published simultaneously with the statement, but if it had not been published at all had been published not simultaneously but some time after the publication of the statement, the period of limitation would have run from the date of publication of the statement. When the date of publication of a notice is not to be considered in deciding when the period of limitation runs, the date of service of a copy of the notice, which is an altogether different act, would still less have to be considered.