CHHOTE LAL Vs. ASTBHUJA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN consolidation proceedings Chhotey Lal appellant filed an objection claiming to be bhumidhar of plots Nos. 277, 278 and 282/1 on the ground that he was recorded as occupant in 1356 Fasli over these plots and so he became Adhivasi on the date of vesting and thereafter Sirdar. He thereafter deposited ten times rent and became bhumidhar. Ashtbhuja contested the claim and contended that he had taken the plots from the zamindar and his name was rightly recorded in the basic year. One Jitai lodged claim to some other plots. The Consolidation Officer held that Chhotey Lal was recorded over the three plots claimed by him and Jitai was also recorded over two plots namely plots Nos. 274 and 282/2 and the name of Ashtbhuja was liable to be excluded from these plots. Aggrieved, Ashtbhuja filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer held that Chhotey Lal was not in possession after 1356 Fasli. Jitai also failed to prove the contract of tenancy. They, therefore, did not become Adhivasis, These findings appear to have been recorded in respect of plot No. 274. The appeal was partly allowed and it was held that plot No. 274 should be recorded in the name of Ashtbhuja. In respect of other plots the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the parties filed three revisions before the Deputy Director. The Deputy Director dismissed the revision filed by Chhotey Lal and allowed the revision filed by Ashtbhuja. He directed that the plots be recorded in the name of Ashtbhuja. On merits he found that Chhotey Lal was not in possession. His right to regain possession was barred by limitation. The suit that he had filed u/Sec. 232/209 of the UP ZA and LR Act on 22 -11 -1955 was clearly time barred. His right to be recorded as tenant extinguished. Since Ashtbhuja was recorded tenant he was entitled to the plots. Aggrieved, Chhotey Lal filed a writ petition which was dismissed by a learned single Judge. Hence the present appeal. In our opinion the suit filed by Chhotey Lal u/Sec. 232/209 of the UP ZA and LR Act on 22 -11 -1955 was not barred by time. An application for restoration of possession u/Sec. 232 of the Act could be moved by an Adhivasi within thirty months of the date of vesting, i.e. upto 1st January, 1955. By virtue of the Amending Act of 1954, which came into force on 10th October, 1954, an existing Adhivasi became a Sirdar. On that date the right to file an application for restoration of possession u/Sec. 232 had not become time barred. So, Chhotey Lal who was recorded as occupant over the three plots in the revenue papers of 1356 Fasli had become Adhivasi u/Cl. (b) (i) of Sec. 20, became Sirdar on 10th October, 1954. From that date onwards he could file a suit for the ejectment of the respondents u/Sec. 209 of the Act. The period of limitation for such a suit is prescribed by serial No. 30, Appendix III to the UP ZA and LR Rules. The material part of this entry is: - -

(2.) IN Bhara Mal v. Ram Chander (1964 AL/1045) it was held that if the possession of the land was ab initio lawful, and the person in possession lost all rights in the land on the date of vesting, thereafter, he could not lawfully retain possession of the land. The date of occupation, i.e. the unlawful occupation, shall be the date of vesting and the suit for ejectment u/Sec. 209 of the Act shall be maintainable upto 1 - -7 - -1956. We are also of the same opinion. Ashtbhuja was unlawfully (?) in possession till the date of vesting. On the date of vesting he lost rights because Chhotey Lal acquired the adhivasi rights. From 1st July, 1952, onwards the possession of Ashtbhuja became unlawful. Therefore the period of limitation commenced from 1st July, 1953. A suit could validly be filed upto 1st July, 1956. In the present case the suit was filed on 22nd November, 1955. It was not barred by time.