S.D. Khare, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the prayer is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in second appeal on 11 -9 -1961 and the order passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation in revision on 5 -12 -1962 be quashed by means of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
(2.) THE undisputed facts leading to this petition briefly stated are that the dispute between the parties relates to plot No. 392, area 2 bighas 19 biswas, situate in village Siana, district Bulandshahr. Originally Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 were the tenants of the plot in dispute but they were ejected by the zamindar by a suit Under Section 171 of the UP Tenancy Act, and after their ejectment the zamindar let out the plot to the Petitioner. Thereafter UP Act No. 10 of 1947 was passed and Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 by virtue of the provisions of Section 27 of that Act became entitled to regain possession over the aforesaid plot. A suit was filed by them, and it was decreed on 17 -8 -1948. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 were declared to be tenants -in -chief and the Petitioner was declared as their sub -tenant entitled to retain possession of the plot for three years, with effect from 17 -8 -1948. After the expiry of three years Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 filed a suit Under Section 202 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Petitioner in the year 1953, but due to some mistake the decree which they obtained was in respect of plot No. 292 instead of plot No. 392. When they discovered that mistake they moved an application for amendment but the same was dismissed by an order of the court passed on 31 -1 -1905. When the consolidation operations started in the village the name of the Petitioner was entered as sirdar against the plot in dispute and an application was filed by Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 that their names be entered as sirdars and the name of the Petitioner be entered as an asami. The Consolidation Officer dismissed the aforesaid application by his order dated 6 -9 -1960. Respondents Nos. 5 to 8 went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, but were unsuccessful. They filed a second appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the same was allowed on 11 -9 -1961. The revision application filed by the Petitioner was dismissed under the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation passed on 5 -12 -1962. The contention of the Petitioner is that by virtue of Section 204 of the Act he had become sirdar of the plot in dispute, and, therefore, the subsequent change in law according to which no limitation is now prescribed for a suit Under Section 202 of the Act will not affect his rights and will not make him an asami. It is, therefore, contended that there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record which sought to be corrected and the impugned orders quashed.
(3.) ON the other hand the contention of the Respondents is that the status of the Petitioner is that of an asami only because under the decree which was passed against him in the month of August 1948, his status had been declared to be that of an asami and he was allowed to retain possession till 17 -8 -1951. The Act came into force from 1st of July, 1952, and the Petitioner's status remained that of an asami under the provisions of Clause (c) of sub -section (sic) of Section 21, which reads as follows: Notwithstanding anything contained, in this Act, every person who, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, occupied or held land as - - (c) sub -tenant referred to in the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 27 of the UP Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, shall be deemed to be asami thereof.;