D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Mangal Singh and two others for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer whereby the Petitioners were not held to be sirdars of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer had recorded the finding that the Petitioners were in possession as trespassers but the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, though accepted the finding of fact, declared the status of the Petitioners to be that of asamis.
(2.) The only point argued before me was that when the Gaon Samaj did not institute a suit for the ejectment of the Petitioners within the prescribed period of three years, their possession matured and they acquired the status of sirdars. This contention was repelled by the consolidation authorities on the ground that the period of three years limitation was to be counted upto the stage of the publication of the statement under Section 11 and as the period had not expired by then the Petitioners could not later on become sirdars.
(3.) Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is the only provision which places a bar on the jurisdiction of a civil or revenue Court. Consequently, if inspite of this provision of law, a revenue suit for ejectment was maintainable and had to be instituted, the period can be counted upto any stage and not necessarily upto the stage of the publication of the statement under Section 11. The material portion of Section 49 of the Act runs as below: No person shall institute any suit or other proceedings in any civil or revenue Court...with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of this Act.;