R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed challenging order dated 5.10.1995, passed by the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Nainital by which revision filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been allowed and the objection filed by the petitioner has been rejected. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that originally father of respondents No. 3 and 4, Late Sri Mulla was recorded as a tenure holder. After his death names of respondents No. 3 and 4 were mutated and they became tenure holders. It is alleged that on 22.12.1973 respondents No. 3 and 4 executed an agreement to sell (unregistered) and accepted Rs. 5,000/ - and handed over possession of land in dispute. Petitioner on the basis of this agreement continued in possession. However, respondents No. 3 and 4 refused to abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement and filed suit No. 22/4 of 1982 -83 under Section 209 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for ejectment of the petitioner. This suit was dismissed on 27.12.1989. Thereafter an appeal registered as appeal No. 119 of 1989 -90 was filed which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 26.6.1991. The matter ultimately came up before the Board of Revenue as Second Appeal No. 272 of 1991. While the second appeal was pending before the Board of Revenue the village was brought under the Consolidation operation and the appeal and the suit abated on 30.9.1991 under Section 5(2) of the Act. Before the Consolidation operation commenced respondents No. 3 and 4 were recorded as tenure holders in basic year record, hence petitioner filed objection under Section 9 of the Act for declaration of his right, on basis of adverse possession. This objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 22.12.1993. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioner filed appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 18.6.1994. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation respondents No. 3 and 4 filed revision registered as revision No. 52/115 of 1994 -95. Under Section 48 of the Act. Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 5.10.1995 allowed the revision, set aside order passed by Settlement Officer Consolidation and restored the order of Consolidation Officer maintaining the entries of basic year in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) THE claim of the petitioner was based on adverse possession. Under serial No. 30 of appendix III to U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules a suit under Section 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for ejectment could be filed within 12 years. In the present case suit for ejectment of petitioner was filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 8.8.1983. This suit ultimately abated in view of the provisions contained in Section 5(2) of the Act, vide order dated 30.9.1991, passed by the Board. Thus during the pendency of the suit and during the consolidation operations period of limitation could not expire. There can not be any doubt about legal position in this respect. In the circumstances the petitioner could not legally mature rights on the basis of the alleged adverse possession even assuming for sake of arguments that other ingredients in this respect were established. The objection of petitioner under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has been rightly rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the transaction entered into between the parties on 22.12.1973 was void being contrary to the provisions of the Act and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 lost all their rights in the land in dispute and it vested in State free all encumbrances. Reliance has been placed under Sections 166 and 167 of the Act.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot get any benefit on the basis of the alleged breach of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act as he was himself a party to the transaction and he cannot be allowed benefit on the basis of an illegality committed by himself. The beneficiary of the consequences of the alleged contravention of the provisions of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would be the State or Gaon Sabha, who can only challenge the rights of respondents No. 3 and 4 and not petitioner. Thus if respondents No. 3 and 4 have committed any contravention of the provisions of the law, it is for the State or the Gaon Sabha to take action in accordance with law. Submission made on behalf of the petitioner can not be accepted. For the reasons stated above, this petition has no merit and it is accordingly rejected.;