KRISHNA MURARI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Abhishek Kumar holding brief of Sri Girish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) THOUGH the case has been taken up in the revised list no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents. The facts giving rise to the present dispute lie in a very narrow compass. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 229 -B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act (for short 'the Act') against the Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. seeking a declaration that he being an unauthorized occupant of the land in dispute since 15.6.1959 has perfected rights under Section 210 of the Act. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of the amendment made in Section 210 of the Act by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1976 being U.P. Act 35 of 1976 with retrospective effect, the petitioner cannot perfect his right over the Gaon Sabha land. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate court on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has remained in unauthorized possession for the period prescribed by law to perfect rights by adverse possession. Second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was again dismissed on the ground that due to amendment brought in the Statute with retrospective effect the petitioner cannot perfect his right by adverse possession over the Gaon Sabha land.
(3.) IT has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amendment was brought in 1976 but however, since by the said time he perfected his rights by adverse possession and no suit for ejectment was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, he is entitled for declaration and the courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit. Relying upon the provision of Section 341 of the Act read with Section 29 of Indian Limitation Act, it has been urged that the suit for ejectment having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, he has perfected his right under Section 210 as it then stood and once he cannot be ejected he is entitled to a declaration of his right as claimed in the suit and the same ought to have been decreed. In support of the contention, he has placed reliarice full bench judgment of this court in the case of Shitala Prasad and Ors. v. Bans Bahore and Ors. 1974 RD 84.;