G.C. Mathur, J. - (1.) The Petitioner filed a suit Under Sec. 202 of the UP ZA and LR Act for eviction of Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 from the plots in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial court as time barred. The view of the trial court has been upheld in appeal by the Addl. Commissioner and in second Appeal by the Board of Revenue. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) The only question which arises for determination is whether the suit filed by the Petitioner was or was not time barred. Parties have proceeded throughout on the basis that the period of limitation for the suit was three years. The facts necessary for consideration of this question are as follows : The Petitioner's mother Smt. Siddiqan, who was a widow, let out the plots in dispute to Karim, grandfather of Respondents 4 and 5 and to Ghulam Rasool Respondent No. 6. Consolidation proceedings started in the village sometime in the year 1955. Smt. Siddiqan filed an objection claiming that she was the sirdar of the plots in dispute. This issue was referred for adjudication to an arbitrator. In the meantime Smt. Siddiqan died on April 33, 1956 and was succeeded by the Petitioner. On March 19, 1959 the arbitrator held that Smt. Siddiqan was the sirdar of the plots in dispute. A few days thereafter on April 18, 1959 the village was identified Under Sec. 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings. Act, A few days thereafter on April 30, 1959 the Civil Judge confirmed the decision of the arbitrator and rejected the objections filed by the contesting Respondents. On October 31, 1961 the present suit was filed by the Petitioner. The view which has been taken by the courts below is that since the mother of the Petitioner died on April 30, 1956, the disability ceased on that date and the Petitioner should have filed the suit within three years of that date and since the suit was filed beyond these three years it is time burred. The Petitioner's contention that no limitation could run during the period when the consolidation proceedings were going on, was repelled by the courts below. They have held that the suit Under Sec. 202 could be filed even when the consolidation proceedings were going on.
(3.) Shri Sharafat Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has contended that the period of limitation for the suit Under Sec. 202 remained suspended during the consolidation proceedings and therefore, the suit which was filed within three years of the close of the consolidation proceedings was within time. In support of his contention that the period of limitation remained suspended during consolidation proceedings he has relied upon the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Badal v/s. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1970 AWR 456. This was a case of a suit Under Sec. 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act. It was held in this case that on the issue of the notification Under Sec. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Moldings Act, the period of limitation for a suit Under Sec. 209 remained suspended. The Full Bench relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Adhar Singh v/s. Ram Roop Singh 1968 AWR 14. In this case the question was whether a suit for possession. Under Sec. 209 pending on the date of the Sec. 4 notification could be abated Under Sec. 5 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that such a suit could be abated Under Sec. 5. If held: Suits for possession as such are not expressly referred to in the amended Sec. 5 of Act XXI of 11966 but the expression 'every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land' are comprehensive enough to take in suits for possession of land, because, before a claim for possession is accepted, the court will have, necessarily, to adjudicate upon the fight or interest of the Plaintiff, in respect of the disputed property, taking into account the Claim of the opposite f arty. Therefore the suit, instituted by the Respondent and the appeal arising out if that suit is covered by the amended Sec. 5 of the Act.;