RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner, who is said to be an adopted son of Late Baijnath Lal, claimed himself to be the sole tenure-holder of the entire land in dispute, which was rejected by all the three Consolidation Courts hence the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of the orders passed by the Consolidation Courts. According to the petitioner, the Consolidation Officer declared Ram Sakal, respondent no.1 to be Sirdar of Khata No. 34, Smt. Phuleshara, respondent no.2 as Sirdar of Khata No.33. The petitioner was declared as Bhumidhar of Khata No. 28 except plot no. 99/2. The Settlement Officer, confirmed the judgment of the Consolidation Officer with regard to Khata Nos. 34 and 35. However, he reversed the findings of the Consolidation Officer with regard to plot nos. 39/2, 77 and 119/2 and declared Ram Sakal and Smt. Phuleshar to be Sirdars of the aforesaid plots. The Revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgement and order dated 13.4.1976.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the right of the contesting opposite parties had already extinguished under Section 210 of the U.P.Z.A. And L.R. Act and the petitioner became Sirdar under Section 210 of the said Act. The claim of the opposite parties was barred by limitation under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Consolidation Authorities have wrongly declared them Sirdar of the land in dispute and allowed their claim, though time barred, by giving benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.;