SHISH RAM Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by the petitioners for a declaration that they were sirdars and the Gaon Sabha and the State Government, respondent nos. 4 and 5, have no right and title in the land in dispute. THE petitioners in their suit claimed rights mainly under section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act alleging that they had acquired rights by remaining in possession, otherwise than in accordance with law for more than the prescribed period against the Gaon Sabha and the State of U. P. No suit for their ejectment was filed when actual delivery of possession was made in their favour under section 28 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) If the limitation is counted from the date the delivery of possession took place, the claim of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 became time-barred.

(2.) THE State Government and the Gaon Sabha contested the suit of the petitioners alleging that their claim was not time barred and that the right to file a suit would accrue in favour of the contesting respondents only after de-notification dated 23-1-1960 under section 52 of the Act. During consolidation operations no suit could be filed for the ejectment of the petitioners under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act and even if it could have been filed it would have abated under section 5 (2) (a) of the Act and the present suit was filed on 7-9-1972. THE period of limitation provided in Schedule III, for a suit under section 209, to be filed by the State Government and the Gaon Sabha, was extended from 12 years to 30 years on 14-10-1971. THE extended period of limitation has not expired. THE suit of the petitioners was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, on the other hand, urged that the limitation has to be counted from the date of the de-notification under section 52 of the Act, i. e. 23-1-1960. In a suit for ejectment it has to be counted from the next agricultural year following the date of occupation i. e. 1-7-1960. THE limitation was extended from 12 years to 30 years on 14-10-1971, by making an amendment in Serial No. 30 of Appendix III, in view of notification no. 450/I-A-3-1 (21-71, hence before the limitation of 12 years could expire it was extended to 30 years thus the petitioners cannot mature rights under section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act as the limitation of 30 years (thirty years) has not expired. THE limitation for filing suit under section 209 was still available to the State Government and the Gaon Sabha. He further urged that the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are correct. He strongly relied upon Ram Adhar Singh v. Ram Roop Singh, AIR 1968 SC 714, Badri v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1970 AWR 456 and Betal Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P., 1985 AWC 170. He further submitted that in the case of Betal Singh v. Board of Revenue, 1985 AWC 170 the aforesaid cases of the Supreme Court and Five Judges Full Bench of this Court were considered, in view of that limitation would start running after de-notification and not prior to that.