(1) THIS appeal, by special leave, is directed against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous (Writ) No. 3820 of 1969 on December 23, 1981.

(2) THE controversy in this appeal relates to the nature of right which Kali Prasad and others (the appellants) are holding the plots in question under the U.P. Zamindari, Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for shortthe U.P. Zamindari Act).

(3) THE appeal relates to one of the two sets of plots in village Pakar, Tappa Pachauri, Pargana Hasanpur Maghar, Tehsil Sardar, P.O. Madanpur, District Gorakhpur one set consisted of 12 plots and the other consisted of 13 plots. In both these sets of plots, the appellants were recorded as occupants along with some other persons in different combinations.

(4) HERE, we are concerned with the set of 13 plots, namely, plot nos. 131, 132, 388,465,471, 758, 760, 855, 893, 894, 895, 896 and 897. Both those sets of plots were combined and joint entries were made in revenue records. Appeals were filed before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for correction of the entries. Appeal Nos. 784 and 785 relate to correction of entries in the said plots. Smt. Partapi was Khatedar and respondents 3 and 4 were asamis of these plots.

(5) AFTER the death of Smt. Partapi on October 31, 1952, Ram Dulare (father of respondents 3 and 4) filed two civil suits in the court of District Munsiff claiming declaration of bhumidari rights and ejectment of the appellants and others. Though, the learned Munsiff decreed the suit in respect of 13 plots in question also, yet, on appeal by the appellants, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court on the ground that the civil court had no jurisdiction and ordered that the plaint be returned.

(6) NOW reverting to the appeals before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), he found, inter alia, that Smt. Partapi was the last Khatedar and the appellants were in adverse possession of the said plots. Despite institution of civil suits in 1954 by Ram Dulare, they could not be ejected from the plots and, therefore, they were entitled to Sirdari rights. Accordingly, he apportioned the plots, allotting shares to each one of them by his order dated August 22, 1968.

(7) THAT order gave rise to filing of five revision petitions, by respondents 3 and 4 herein, before the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Gorakhpur. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) having considered the judgment of the District Judge noted that the claim of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground of being sisters sons of the last male tenure holder (Bal Karan) of the disputed land in respect of which Smt. Partapi was recorded as Khatedar, was not denied. What was argued before him was that respondents 3 and 4 being sisters sons of Bal Karan, were not entitled to the land after the death of Smt. Partapi. It was, however, admitted that the appellants herein were in possession of the land 1359 F but it was argued that they were simply asamis and they had not acquired any Sirdari rights. The contention of the appellants herein before the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was that even if they were held to be asamis, as they were not ejected within the period of limitation by filing a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Act, they acquired Sirdari rights. The alternative submission was that they had perfected their right by adverse possession. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) took the view that Sections 16, 19 and 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Act do not apply to the case and that the appellants continued to be asamis under Section 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act XXXI of 1952, as such they cannot claim to be Sirdaris on the ground that the said respondents did not file any suit for their ejectment. In his opinion, as no period of limitation is prescribed for such cases, a suit can still be filed for their ejectment. The Deputy Director (Consol