M.H. Beg, J. - (1.) THESE are two writ petitions by Hanuman Rai directed against identical orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 18 -10 -1962, Under Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which he dismissed the Petitioner's revision applications against the orders of the Settlement Officer, Opposite Party No. 2, passed on 11 -9 -1961. The Settlement Officer had dismissed two separate appeals, Under Rule 34(3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Rules, from the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 6 -9 -1960. The Petitioner has thus been unsuccessful before each of the three consolidation authorities. The Consolidation Officer held that the opposite parties had been in possession over plots Nos. 522 and 626 since 1348 Fasli and that the remaining plots Nos. 521, 523, 524, 525 and 526 had been recorded as sub -tenancy of Behari and others in 1349 Fasli. It is true that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer did not give any clear findings as to when the possession of the opposite parties in the two cases, which have come up before this Court, started. The Deputy Director of Consolidation in his orders disposing of both the cases in revision, however, stated that it could not be denied that the possession of opposite party in each case had started in 1359 Fasli as trespasser so that the period of limitation for the ejectment of the trespasser, which was originally two years before the date of vesting, expired on 30 -6 -1954. In view of this finding, the Deputy Director held that the opposite parties automatically became sirdars by reason of the operation of the provisions of Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act.
(2.) MR . V.K.S. Chaudhry, appearing for the Petitioner in each of the two writ petitions, has urged that, upon the finding given by the Deputy Director, the provisions of Section 210 of the ZA and LR Act could not confer any rights upon the opposite parties inasmuch as the consolidation proceedings commenced, according to the Petitioner, in 1954. Actually the consolidation proceedings commenced in March 1955 as is evident from, paragraph 4 of the counter -affidavit showing that the notification Under Section 4 of the Act with regard to this village was issued in March 1958. The learned Counsel for the Respondents, Mr. Faujdar Rai, states that, as a result of the information given to him formally by the consolidation authorities, the date of notification Under Section 4 of the Act should be 31 -3 -1955 and prays that he may be allowed to file the reply given on the inquiry form submitted by his client to the consolidation authorities. The actual date of the month of March 1955 on which notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued is not important in this case. Therefore, there is no need to admit any additional evidence on the matter. The question which arises in this case, whether the notification was issued in 1954 or early in 1955, is : Does the period of limitation prescribed by Section 210 of the ZA and LR Act continue to run during the pendency of the consolidation proceedings? It is admitted by both sides that no suit Under Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act was filed at any time by the Petitioner who seems to have relied on objections Under Section 12 of the Act, which were decided against him by the consolidation authorities, to save limitation from running. It has been contended by Mr. Chaudhry that the filing of objections Under Section 12 of the Act operates as a substitute for the filing of a suit Under Section 209 of the ZA and LR Act so as to arrest the running of the period of limitation prescribed Under Section 210 of the UP ZA and LR Act. This question was considered by my learned brother G. C. Mathur, J in Ahsan Ali v. Deputy Director, 1965 ALJ 1161 where it was held that neither the notification under Section 4 of the Act nor the publication of the statement under Section 11 of the Act prevents a person from filing a suit under Section 209 of the ZA and LR Act and his failure to file the suit within the period of limitation resulted in extinction of his rights in the plot in dispute. It was pointed out there that this view was in accord with the view taken by a Division Bench, in Special Appeal No. 384 of 1959, dismissing an appeal from the judgment and order of Srivastava, J in Chinno v. State of UP Writ Petition No. 2258 of 1957 decided on 4 -5 -1959. Reliance was placed in Ahsan Ali's (1) case upon a passage from Chinnoo's case (supra) where it was held that a suit under Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act would be outside the purview of Section 49 of the Act which runs as follows: Bar to Civil Court Jurisdiction : No person shall institute any suit or other proceeding in any civil court with respect to any matter arising out of consolidation proceedings or with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application should be filed under the provisions of this Act.
(3.) IN Ahsan Ali's case (supra), it was also pointed out that Dwivedi, J. had, in Dwarka v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Writ No. 632 of 1959 decided on 16 -8 -1960, followed the Division Bench decision in Noor Mohd.'s case (Sp. A. No. 384 of 1959). The view taken by the Division Bench had, therefore, to prevail over the view taken by D.S. Mathur, J. in Mangal Singh v. Regional Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1960 AWR 503 and Asthana, J. in Mahabir Gadaria v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1965 AWR 248 : UPRC 91.;