R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against order of Board of Revenue dismissing second appeal filed by petitioner in proceedings arising out of suit filed under Section 202 of U. P. Z. A. Act (1 of 1951). It appears consolidation was enforced in 1958 and it was held by consolidation authorities that petitioner was an assami as Sonehi Lal his landholder, and predecessor in interest of opposite parties, was a disabled person within meaning of Section 157 of the Act. The view of consolidation authorities was upheld by this Court also in 1965 when writ petition filed by petitioner was dismissed. In 1967 the village was de-notified under section 52 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. A suit under section 202 was therefore filed in 1968 which was decreed on 5-9-1969. This order was upheld in first and second appeal.
(2.) The learned counsel for petitioner raised number of arguments. He attempted to challenge finding of consolidation authorities which could not be done for the simple reason that he is debarred from raising such a argument in view of principle of finality incorporated in Section 49 of Consolidation Act. Nor is there any merit in the submission that suit under section 202 was not maintainable as there is no provision in the Act or rules which debars a person who has been held Sirdar to file suit for ejectment of assami obviously because Consolidation Act does not provide any forum. The learned counsel ultimately fell back on plea of adverse possession but the argument is academic as it is apparent that Sanehi Lal was alive when consolidation was enforced and he died during pendency of consolidation resulting in determination of disability but the limitation to file suit could not be counted till village was de-notified and this having taken place in 1967 as is clear from Notification No. 5801/Z-38-54 issued on 5-9-1966 published in Government Gazette on 20th February, 1967 de-notifying consolidation in village Chebra Mau and the suit having been filed within three years the question of adverse possession does not arise.
(3.) In the result this petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;