S.D. Khare, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been referred to a larger Bench because of a conflict in the decisions given by two learned single Judges of this Court in two different cases on the question of the applicability of Section 6 of the Limitation Act to a suit Under Section 209 of the UP ZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the case of Raghubir Singh v. Board of Revenue Allahabad, 1966 AWR 246 it was held by Singh, J. that the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act were not applicable to such a suit. On the other hand, a contrary view was taken by K.N. Srivastava, J. in the case of Bans Bahore and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors., 1969 AWR 219 Srivastava, J. also relied on an unreported Division Bench case of this Court in support of the proposition that Section 6 of the Limitation Act was applicable to such proceedings.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties was with regard to plot No. 161/2, area 1.63 acres, situate in village Kunwarbhatpur, district Etawah. Till 1361 Fasli (corresponding to the year 1954) this plot was entered in the name of Devi Din (father of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5). On 3 -4 -1957, sometime after the death of Devi Din, his two minor sons, under the guardianship of their next friend, filed a suit Under Section 209 of the Act against Deshraj and others in respect of plot No. 161/2 and three other plots. A compromise was arrived at between the parties and the suit was decided in terms of the compromise, under which Deshraj (Petitioner) was declared to be the sirdar of the disputed plot. It appears that the permission of the Judicial Officer before whom the suit was pending was not obtained before the suit was compromised and a decree was passed in pursuance of that compromise. The consolidation proceedings started in the village on 5 -3 -1960 and an objection was filed by Ram Autar and Balak Ram (Respondents Nos. 4 and 5), sons of Devi Din, contending that the name of Deshraj had been wrongly recorded against the disputed plot and that it was their property. In the beginning, the Consolidation Officer dismissed the suit, but on remand by the court of appeal the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 9 -3 -1964, passed an order directing the names of Deshraj and others to be expunged and those of the minors recorded against that plot. In the opinion of the Consolidation Officer Section 6 of the Limitation Act was applicable to the claim made by the minors. On an appeal being filed, the Settlement Officer dismissed it on 18 -5 -1964. He was of the opinion that the compromise decree passed earlier could be avoided by the minors for the simple reason that the permission of the court had not been obtained before the decree was passed. The Settlement Officer further observed that it was difficult to understand how the Judicial Officer had in that proceeding declared Deshraj to be the sirdar of the plot. The Dy. Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision filed against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 17 -7 -1965. In the opinion of the Dy. Director also the claim of the sons of Devi Din was within time because it had been made within three years of the date of one of them having attained majority, the other being still a minor. In the circumstances of the case it is clear that in case it is held that Section 6 of the Limitation Act was applicable to proceedings Under Section 209 of the Act, there could be no objection to the decisions given by the consolidation authorities. All the matters decided by them were within their jurisdiction and obviously no other error of law could be pointed out.
(3.) IN our opinion this writ petition must fail, because it will not be possible to say that the consolidation authorities committed an apparent error of law when they held that Section 6 of the Limitation Act would apply to proceedings Under Section 209 of the Act.;