The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no period of limitation for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the consolidation operation shall not be deemed closed when an order is pending before a competent court of law, and alternative remedies are available to the petitioner.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 25/8/2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Etawah and order dated 27/2/2003 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Etawah for further direction to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute.

( 2 ) HEARD Sri A. K. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

( 3 ) THE writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

( 4 ) WHEN the writ petition was filed, it was reported by this office that period of limitation for filing writ petition was upto 23/11/2003, while writ petition was filed on 12/11/2003. Thus it is barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no period of limitation for a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this court reported in Raj Kumar and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, in which it has been laid down by this court that neither in Indian Limitation Act nor in Allahabad High Court Rules, the period of limitation of filing writ petition has been prescribed. Thus, the normal period of limitation of 90 days does not apply to the writ petition filed in this court. In this case, the revision was decided by learned Sessions Judge, Etawah on 25/8/2003. Some time would have taken place in receiving copy of the order and filing writ petition. Thus, the delay in filing instant writ petition is not such which can amount to latches on the part of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition cannot be held to be barred by time and it is be considered on merit.

( 5 ) A perusal of the order passed by both the courts below shows that accor-ding to petitioner, he moved application before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Etawah on 15/3/2000 that he is in possession of plot Nos. 338, 333 and 334 situate in Mauja Sarai Ekdil, district Etawah. It is alleged that Salik Ram was original bhumidhar of the plots. He had no son. He left Smt. Shanti Devi, his daughter behind him. Smt. Shanti Devi is cousin daughter of the petitioner, who was left by her husband about 35 years before. Since then she was residing with the petitioner. Smt. Santi Devi died on 6/10/1999 and during her life time, the petitioner was looking after her above mentioned disputed land. On her death the petitioner became legally entitled for the land, but the respondents contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that Smt. Shanti Devi had executed Will deed on 2/9/1991 in their favour and their names were mutated in revenue record on 18/2/2000 under order of Consoli-dation Officer, Badpura, district Etawah. The Consolidation Officer decided the case in favour of the respondents and against the petitioner. Appeal was preferred by the petitioner which is pending before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. On the issue of possession dispute did take place between the parties. Application was moved by the petitioner for proceeding under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned rejected the application by order dated 27/3/2003 on the ground that names of the respondents had been recorded in revenue record by order of Consolidation officer. The petitioner preferred revision bearing Krishan Gopal v. Dilip Singh and others which was dismissed on 25/8/2003 by learned Sessions Judge, Etawah. Hence this writ petition has been filed.

( 6 ) IT has been alleged that when the appeal in respect of the rights and interest of the parties is pending between the parties in the court of Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the application under section 145 Cr. P. C could not be rejected because rights of the parties have not been finally decided and the order of consolidation officer passed in favour of the respondents has not become final. It is also submitted that a publication under section 52-A of the U. P. Consolidation of