PARAMJEET SINGH Vs. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner was based on adverse possession. Under serial No. 30 of appendix III to U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules a suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for ejectment could be filed within 12 years. In the present case suit for ejectment of petitioner was filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 8.8.1983. This suit ultimately abated in view of the provisions contained in Section 5(2) of the Act, vide order dated 30.9.1991, passed by the Board. Thus during the pendency of the suit and during the consolidation operations period of limitation could not expire. There can not be any doubt about legal position in this respect. In the circumstances the petitioner could not legally mature rights on the basis of the alleged adverse possession even assuming for sake of arguments that other ingredients in this respect were established. The objection of petitioner under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been rightly rejected.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot get any benefit on the basis of the alleged breach of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as he was himself a party to the transaction and he cannot be allowed benefit on the basis of an illegality committed by himself. The beneficiary of the consequences of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would be the State or Gaon Sabha, who can only challenge the rights of respondents No. 3 and 4 and not petitioner. Thus if respondents No. 3 and 4 have committed any contravention of the provisions of the law, it is for the State or the Gaon Sabha to take action in accordance with law. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner can not be accepted. For the reasons stated above, this petition has no merit and it is accordingly rejected.