M. C. Desai, J. - (1.) The short question that arises before us is of the interpretation of Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which is to the effect that "Every person interested in disputing the correctness or nature of an entry in the statement published under Section 11 shall within thirty days of the publication of the statement under sub-sec. (2) of Section 11 file objection."
(2.) Sec. 11 by sub-sec. (1) lays down that the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall prepare a statement containing certain particulars and by sub-sec. (2) it lays down that "the statement shall be published in the village along with a notice calling upon all persons interested to file objections, if disputing the correctness....." and that "a copy of notice together with relevant extracts, from the statement shall also be served on each tenure holder in the village." What happened in this case is that the statement referred to in sub-sec. (1) was published in the village on the 31st March, 1957, along with the required notice, a copy of the notice was served upon the respondents on the 12th April, 1957, and they filed an objection under Section 12 on the 7th May, 1957. The date of the objection was more than thirty days after the date of publication of the statement but within thirty days of the date of the service of a copy of the notice and the question at once arose whether it was barred by time or not. Our brother Tandon held that it was not barred by time and that the period of thirty days prescribed by Section 12 was to be computed from the date of the service of a copy of the notice and this view is challenged before us.
(3.) After hearing counsel we have no hesitation in saying that 31st March, 1957, was the date of publication of the statement within the meaning of Section 12 and that the period of limitation for the objection commenced on it. Sec. 12, clearly lays down that the limitation runs from the date of publication of the statement, and all that the court has to determine is on what date the statement was published. Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 11 requires in all three acts to be done, (1) publishing the statement, (2) publishing a notice inviting objections and (3) serving a copy of the notice on each tenure-holder. There are two things to be published, the statement and a notice; they are required to be published simultaneously, but none the less they are two publications. Publication of the statement, therefore, is distinct from publication of a notice and the period of limitation has been made to run from the date of publication of the statement. It is immaterial that on account of a notice having been published simultaneously with the statement that would also be the date of publication of the notice, but what the court has to consider under Section 12 is the date of publication of the statement and not that of the notice. In this case a notice was published simultaneously with the statement, but if it had not been published at all had been published not simultaneously but some time after the publication of the statement, the period of limitation would have run from the date of publication of the statement. When the date of publication of a notice is not to be considered in deciding when the period of limitation runs, the date of service of a copy of the notice, which is an altogether different act, would still less have to be considered.;