IMAMUDDIN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Champa Devi filed a suit under S.202 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the petitioner. That suit was decreed. Consolidation operations started thereafter. Objections were filed by Imam Uddin claiming to be Sirdar of the disputed land. Smt. Champa Devi claimed to be the Bhumidhar of the said land. On 16-8-1960 the Consolidation Officer rejected the objection of Imam Uddin. On 1-10- 1960, appeal filed by Imam Uddin was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thereafter, on 29-12-1960 the Deputy Director dismissed the second appeal filed by Imam Uddin. A revision was again filed before the Joint Director (C) by Imam Uddin which was dismissed on 29-5-1962. It appears that after the decision of the Joint Director dated 29-5-1962 the village was denotified under S.52 of the Consolidation of the Holdings Act. On 20-5-1970 Smt. Champa Devi again filed a suit under S.229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the declaration that she was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit. In the alternative a prayer was made for possession. This suit was contested by Imam Uddin who claimed to have become Bhumidhar by virtue of his long standing possession for the last 30 or 40 years. A plea was also taken that the suit was barred by limitation. The Assistant Collector First Class decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide his judgment dated 11-9-1972. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed by Imam Uddin which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 30-4-1973. A second appeal was filed thereafter by Imam Uddin which has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 31-8-1973 hence this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. The sole question which has been argued before me by the petitioner's counsel is that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The view taken by the revenue courts is that the period of limitation for the filing of the suit in question would accrue from the date of decision of the writ petition by the High Court that is on 18-9- 1967. They have repelled the contention of the petitioner that the period of limitation would commence from the date of denotification that is from the year 1962. From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties as they emerge on a consideration of the impugned orders (the original pleadings not having been filed before this court by any of the parties) it appears that the plaintiff has alleged that in spite of the decision of the Consolidation Courts in her favour, the defendant in collusion with the patwari has got the incorrect entries made in the revenue papers and was asserting his title over the land in suit. A relief for declaration was sought in this suit and in the alternative a prayer for possession was also made. On the face of it, the suit having been instituted on 23-5-1970 there can be no doubt that the case of the plaintiff pertained to the period of time after denotification of the village in question. S.52 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act runs as follows:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has submitted that even though there can be no specific direction by the High Court yet the dispute pending before it related to the same subject-matter, that is the same plot in question in which the parties were claiming Bhumidhar rights on the one hand and Sirdari rights on the other. I am not inclined to accept this submission for two reasons. In the first place, even if we assume the dispute to be the same, in the absence of any specific prohibition in the nature of an interlocutory stay order passed by the High Court, no advantage can be given to the plaintiff under S.15 of the Limitation Act; secondly, the nature of the case indicates that the dispute was not the same. The grievance in the instant suit under S.229-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by Smt. Champa Devi was that Imam Uddin had got incorrect entries made in collusion with the patwari and was thus asserting his title to the plot in dispute on the basis of these entries. These entries which have been made obviously after the denotification of the village could not possibly form the subject matter of dispute in the earlier consolidation proceedings out of which the writ petition was pending in the High Court. For these reasons I do not agree with the submission of the respondent's counsel. In my view too period of limitation in the circumstances of the present case would commence from the date on which the village in question was denotified that is from the year 1962. Admittedly, as the law stood at that relevant point of time, six years limitation was provided for filing a suit of the nature filed by the plaintiff Smt. Champa Devi. Since this suit has been filed on 23-5-1970 much beyond the six years period of limitation, it is clearly barred by time. Thus the impugned orders which are being challenged in this writ petition are legally erroneous on the face of the record.