K.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Assistant Director, Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow, dated 11 -7 -1973, whereby the revision petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) THE main grievance in the present writ petition raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the consolidation authorities have failed to consider the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the Petitioner to prove his continuous possession for more than 12 years, hence according to the Petitioner the findings recorded by the appellate authority and the revisional court suffer from mistakes of law apparent on the face of the record. For the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the oral evidence led on behalf of the Petitioner was not considered by the revisional court, that would not vitiate the findings recorded by the revisional court in the present case. In view of the recent amendment made in the provisions of Sections 209 and 210 of the UPZA and LR Act even if the Petitioner is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha for 12 years he would not acquire Sirdari right in the disputed land. In this connection it is proper to mention the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 3424 of 1972 -Vakil Ahmad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has observed as below : Having heard counsel for the parties I am of opinion that in view of the amendment made in Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, it will serve no useful purpose in considering the case of the Petitioner on merits. As seen above the Petitioner was claiming sirdari rights on the plots in respect of which the present writ petition has been instituted under Section 210 (iii) of the Act aforesaid. Section 15 of the Ordinance reads: 15. For Section 210 of the Principal Act, the following section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted, namely: 210. If a suit for eviction from any land under Section 209 is not instituted by a bhumidhar, sirdar or asami, or a decree for eviction obtained in any such suit is not executed by him, within the period of limitation provided for the institution of such suit or the execution of such decree, as the case may be, the person taking or retaining possession shall - (i) Where the land forms part of the holding of a bhumidhar or sirdar, become a sirdar of such land and the rights, title and interest of an asami, if any, in such land shall be extinguished : (ii) Where the land forms part of the holding of an asami, on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, become an asami thereof holding from year to year. Section 210 as it stands after its amendment does not now contain any such provision as was contained in Clause (iii) of Section 210 of the Principal Act. It is this Sub -clause (iii) in pursuance of which alone the Petitioner could have acquired sirdari rights over the land in question. Section 210 has been substituted by the Ordinance with retrospective effect as is clear from the plain language of the section when it uses the words "and be deemed always to have been substituted". In the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax v. V.M.R. Namboodripad : AIR 1974 SC 1369 the effect of retrospective amendment of an enactment was considered at page 1372. It was held that by legal fiction the provision which has been subsequently enacted with retrospective operation will be deemed to form part of the statute book from the very date of the commencement of the Act which has been amended with retrospective effect. Consequently it is with effect from July 1, 1952, itself, which is the date of the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, that Clause (iii) of Section 210 would be deemed not to be there, in the said Act. Since the Petitioner could have claimed sirdari rights only on the basis of the said Sub -clause the very foundation of his claim has disappeared with retrospective effect. It is in this view of the matter that it is now unnecessary to consider the merits of the Petitioners' claim inasmuch as even if it is ultimately held that the Petitioner had been in continuous possession for more than 12 years over the land in dispute he cannot be held to be sirdar thereof.
(3.) IN the present case even if the Petitioner succeeds in proving that he was in continuous possession for more than 12 years over the disputed land he would not acquire sirdari right in view of the recent amendment with retrospective effect. Relying upon the above observation made by a learned single Judge of this Court, I am of the view that the present writ petition cannot succeed even if the oral evidence is accepted by the revisional court in toto. In the circumstances of the present case it is difficult for me to say that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed. No useful purpose will be served in quashing the impugned judgment as the Petitioner cannot acquire sirdari right in the disputed land.;