E. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner claimed sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of continuous possession for more than statutory period against the tenure holder.
(2.) THE Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had accepted the claim of the petitioner but in revision his claim has been negatived and aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two points for consideration. Firstly, according to him the revisional court has patently erred in ignoring the entry in favour of the petitioner on the basis of an order passed by a Naib Tahsildar in the year 1956. He has emphasized that in view of Section 6 of U. P. Act No. 10 of 1961, the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar would be a good order and the revisional court has patently erred in this regard. In order to test the contention, it is necessary to quote Section 6 which reads as below - " (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, anything done or purporting to have been done and any action taken or purporting to have been taken (including any order made or passed, proceeding taken, direction issued, jurisdiction exercised and judgment delivered) in the areas in which the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 is in force, prior to the commencement of this Act, by an Assistant Collector not in charge of the sub-division, or by Tahsildar or Naib Tahsildar under the principal Act or under any other law for the time being in force, shall be good and valid and shall be deemed always to have been good and valid as if on all material dates (i) Such Assistant Collector had been duly appointed Assistant Collector in charge of the sub-Division, (ii) Such Tahsildar had been a duly appointed Assistant Collector of the First Glass.
(3.) IN my opinion the class IX entry could be made by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the year 1956 but it was made in this case by the Naib Tahsildar. Therefore, I think that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar in this case would be deemed to have been passed by a competent authority in view of the above quoted provision. If the order had been passed by Assistant Collector not in charge of the Sub-Division, I think that the aforesaid section would have helped the petitioner and the order could be deemed to have been passed by the Assistant Collector. Since the order has been passed by the Naib Tahsildar and at the relevant time it should have been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, I think that the defect cannot be cured in spite the above quoted provision. To my mind the revisional court has not committed any error in discarding the entry of class IX in favour of the petitioner. Second contention raised on behalf of the petitioner Is that on the spot the disputed land was cultivated by the petitioner along with the plot belonging to him. In this view of the matter his possession should have been presumed for requisite period because both the plots were Inter-mingled and cultivated by the petitioner for more than statutory period. In my opinion, the contention has no force. If in a particular year both the plots were intermingled and cultivated together it would not have led to an inference that they were cultivated as such for the last requisite period. In the present case it has been emphasized that the entries in favour of the petitioner from 1366 F. to 1368 F. were not available. Therefore, there was a break in the continuity of possession over the disputed land by the petitioner. On the materials in the present case it is difficult to say that the revisional court has patently erred In not recognizing the claim of the petitioner based on unauthorized possession for more than statutory period against the tenure-holder. It is immaterial how the contesting opposite party has succeeded in proving his claim. If the petitioner does not establish his claim within the four corners of law, there would be no injustice to the petitioner and on that count the petitioner can not invoke the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.;