C. S. P. Singh, J. - (1.) The dispute in the petition relates to plot No. 253 in village Veerpur. Pargana Mali, district Allahahad. Proceedings under Sec. 212-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act were taken against the petitioner, and an order for his ejectment and payment of compensation was also passed on 18-6-58. It appears, however, that no compensation was paid to the petitioner, neither was he dispossessed from the land in suit. Thereafter, when consolidation proceedings started, an objection was raised on behalf of the Gaon Sabha that the land was a pond, and orders for ejectment of the petitioner had already been passed earlier but due to collusion of the Sabhapati, the name of the Gaon Sabha was not mutated in the revenue papers. The petitioner contested the objection and amongst other pleas taken was that even if it be assumed that the petitioner had no title to the land, he had perfected his title by adverse possession. The objection of the Gaon Sabha was allowed and the plea raised by the petitioner has been rejected.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the mere fact that an order under Sec. 212-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had been passed on 18-6-1958, did not extinguish the possession of the petitioner, inasmuch as the order was never executed, nor compensation paid and the petitioner has perfected title by being in possession for over 12 years. This contention appears to be correct. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has proceeded on the footing that in as much as, no period of limitation is provided for executing the order under Sec. 212-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the right of the petitioner stood extinguished in as much as no suit under Sec. 212-A (7) of the Act was filed by the petitioner within the time provided therein. This approach does not appear to be correct. The mere fact that an order under Sec. 212-A was passed against the petitioner in 1958, postulates that the petitioner was in possession previous to that order. The fact that an order under Sec. 212-A of the Act was passed did not bring about an end to the possession of the petitioner. It is not denied, and neither is there any finding to the contrary, that the petitioner continued in possession. Consolidation proceedings started sometime in 1969. Earlier an order under Sec. 212-A of the Act was passed in 1957, but the matter was remanded and the subsequent order came to be passed on 18-6-58. Thus it is clear that the petitioner was in possession before 1957. At the time when the consolidation proceedings started in 1969, the petitioner was undoubtedly in continued possession for over 12 years and as such had become Sirdar of the plot. The right of the Gaon Sabha to the land in dispute stood extinguished when objections were filed on its behalf before the consolidation authorities. The order passed by the consolidation authorities cannot as such be upheld.
(3.) The petition is accordingly allowed. The order passed by respondents 1, 2 and 3 dated 7-8-1971, 24-2-1971 and 5-12-1970 are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Petition allowed.;