B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a suit under section 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act filed by the petitioners for a declaration that they were sirdars and the Gaon Sabha and the State Government, respondent nos. 4 and 5, have no right and title in the land in dispute. THE petitioners in their suit claimed rights mainly under section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act alleging that they had acquired rights by remaining in possession, otherwise than in accordance with law for more than the prescribed period against the Gaon Sabha and the State of U. P. No suit for their ejectment was filed when actual delivery of possession was made in their favour under section 28 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) If the limitation is counted from the date the delivery of possession took place, the claim of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 became time-barred.
(2.) THE State Government and the Gaon Sabha contested the suit of the petitioners alleging that their claim was not time barred and that the right to file a suit would accrue in favour of the contesting respondents only after de-notification dated 23-1-1960 under section 52 of the Act. During consolidation operations no suit could be filed for the ejectment of the petitioners under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act and even if it could have been filed it would have abated under section 5 (2) (a) of the Act and the present suit was filed on 7-9-1972. THE period of limitation provided in Schedule III, for a suit under section 209, to be filed by the State Government and the Gaon Sabha, was extended from 12 years to 30 years on 14-10-1971. THE extended period of limitation has not expired. THE suit of the petitioners was liable to be dismissed. The trial court by order dated 20-6-1974 (Annexure '1') decreed the suit but the appeal of the State Government and the Gaon Sabha was allowed by the impugned order dated 30-6-1975 (Annexure '2') against the petitioners. This order was maintained in Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue by the order dated 30-9-1977 (Annexure 3). These two orders (Annexure '2' and '3') are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. Sri Markandey Katju, the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the petitioners matured rights under section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act by remaining in adverse possession for more than the prescribed period of 12 years applicable in the case of the Gaon Sabha and the State Government. The de-notification under section 52 of the Act was made on 23-1-1960 whereas C. H. Form No. 25 was prepared in favour of the petitioners. In the proceedings under section 28 of the Act the possession was delivered on 20-9-1959. The petitioners filed the suit on 7-9-1972. No suit was filed for the ejectment of the petitioners by the State Government and the Gaon Sabha within a period of 12 years as provided by Appendix III (See Rule 338 of the Rules) Serial 30 prescribing period of limitation for a suit under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act, consequently the petitioners acquired rights under section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. He strongly relied on the case of Bideshi v. Board of Revenue, U. P., 1981 AWC 356.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, on the other hand, urged that the limitation has to be counted from the date of the de-notification under section 52 of the Act, i. e. 23-1-1960. In a suit for ejectment it has to be counted from the next agricultural year following the date of occupation i. e. 1-7-1960. THE limitation was extended from 12 years to 30 years on 14-10-1971, by making an amendment in Serial No. 30 of Appendix III, in view of notification no. 450/I-A-3-1 (21-71, hence before the limitation of 12 years could expire it was extended to 30 years thus the petitioners cannot mature rights under section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act as the limitation of 30 years (thirty years) has not expired. THE limitation for filing suit under section 209 was still available to the State Government and the Gaon Sabha. He further urged that the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are correct. He strongly relied upon Ram Adhar Singh v. Ram Roop Singh, AIR 1968 SC 714, Badri v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1970 AWR 456 and Betal Singh v. Board of Revenue, U. P., 1985 AWC 170. He further submitted that in the case of Betal Singh v. Board of Revenue, 1985 AWC 170 the aforesaid cases of the Supreme Court and Five Judges Full Bench of this Court were considered, in view of that limitation would start running after de-notification and not prior to that. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are without substance. The first point for determination is as to whether a limitation for a suit under section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act would commence from 20-9-1959 when the possession is alleged to have been delivered to the petitioners during the consolidation operations, in the proceedings under section 28 of the Act, or the limitation would start running from the date of the de-notification under section 52 of the Act i. e. 23-1-1961. The second point is as to whether the limitation of 12 years would apply as urged on behalf of the petitioners or that of 30 years would apply against the claim of the Gaon Sabha inasmuch as before 12 years period could be completed it was extended to 30 years.;