Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and raise the same questions.
(2.) The appellant Hanuman Rai filed an objection under Sec. 12(1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings' Act claiming to be the bhumidhar of the plots in dispute. The objections were, however, dismissed by the Consolidation Officer and that order was upheld in appeal. The appellant took the dispute in revision. The Deputy Director held that the adverse possession of the respondents commenced in 1359 F. The period of limitation for the ejectment of a trespasser was originally two years and it expired one 30th June 1954. Thereafter the respondents became sirdars under Section 10 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. On this view he dismissed revision. Aggrieved, the appellant filed two writ petitions in this Court. A learned Single Judge held that in view of the findings of fact the respondents did become sirdars after 30th June, 1954.
(3.) It appears that the notification under Sec. 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings was published on 16-3-1955. The learned Judge held that the publication of this notification, did not suspend the running on time and since no suit for the ejectment of the respondents had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation the respondents became sirdars under Section 210 of the Zamindari Abolition Act. On, these findings the writ petitions were dismissed. Hence the present appeals.;