PUTTU SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. KIRAT SINGH AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-1965-4-24
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 26,1965

Puttu Singh And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Kirat Singh And Others Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

AMRAWATI VS. D.D.C. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-7-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAM BAHAL & ANR VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGARH & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-12] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhargava, J. - (1.)The Petitioner in this petition under Article 226, of the Constitution, have sought the issue a writ of certiorari to quash an order made by the Joint Director of Consolidation under Sec. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The question that came up for decision was whether the proceedings, which were taken by opposite party No. 1 against the Petitioners were within time "or were barred' by limitation. The Joint Director of Consolidation accepted the findings of fact which had been recorded by the Deputy Director to the effect that opposite party No. 1 was wrongfully dispossessed sometime in the year 1360F. by the Petitioners who apart from wrong fully dispossessing opposite party No. 1. were also at that time the bhumidhar of this land. Opposite party No. 1 at that time was an adhivasi of this land. With effect from the 1st of November 1954, the bhumidhari rights of the Petitioners were acquired by the State Government and opposite party No. 1 was declared its sirdar. Proceedings for possession in respect of this land were started by opposite party No. 1 on the 1st of July, 1957. The question, that arose, was whether, if a suit had been brought under Sec. 209 of the UPZA and LR Act on the 1st of July, 1957, it would have been within time or time barred. If the suit would have been within time, opposite party No. 1 was entitled to the relief claimed by him of being put back into possession on the disputed land. On the other hand, if the suit would have been time barred, the Petitioners would be entitled to continue in possession because they had wrongfully dispossessed opposite party No. 1 who had lost his right of a suit under Sec. 209 of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.)Having gone through the judgment of the Joint Director of Consolidation, we are unable to find that he had committed any error at all. Sec. 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applies to land which forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami. The findings of fact, mentioned by us above, make it clear that upto the 31st of October, 1954, opposite party No. 1 was only an adhivasi of this land, so that up to that date, the land did not form part of the holding of any bhumidhar, sirdar, or asami who might have been wrongfully dispossessed by the Petitioners. Upto the 31st of October, 1954. the dispossession was that of an adhivasi whose remedy for seeking possession lay under Sec. 212B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. That remedy was not actually resorted to by opposite party No. 1 up to that date.
(3.)On the 1st of November, 1954 while opposite party No. 1 still possessed that remedy and his rights in the land had not yet become extinguished, the law and the notification of the Government intervened with the result that opposite party No. 1 acquired the right to bring a suit Under Sec. 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The possession of the Petitioners, who were in possession of part of the holding of an adhivasi up to the 31st of October, 1954, became possession of land forming part of the holding of a sirdar on the 1st of November, 1954. The result was that from that date the cause of action for a suit Under Sec. 209 accrued. Until the 1st of November, 1954, the occupation of land by the Petitioners was in respect of land which did not from part of the holding of any bhumidhar, sirdar or asami and, consequently, the period of limitation as prescribed under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, Schedule III of the Rules could not begin to run. Under that schedule in such a case where unlawful possession is taken or relate of land forming part of the holding of a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, the period of limitation begins to run from the 1st of July following the date of occupation. In the present case, the date of occupation of the land forming part of the holding of opposite party No. 1, as sirdar began on the 1st, of November, 1954 only, so that the suit would have been within time if instituted within three years computed from the 1st of July, 1955. Since the suit was instituted within that period, it was rightly held to be within time.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.