Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar holding brief of Sri Girish Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Though the case has been taken up in the revised list no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

3. The facts giving rise to the present dispute lie in a very narrow compass. Petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (for short ‘the Act’) against the Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. seeking a declaration that he being an unauthorized occupant of the land in dispute since 15.6.1959 has perfected rights under Section 210 of the Act. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that in view of the amendment made in Section 210 of the Act by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1976 being U.P. Act 35 of 1976 with retrospective effect, the petitioner cannot perfect his right over the Gaon Sabha land. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate Court on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has remained in unauthorized possession for the period prescribed by law to perfect rights by adverse possession. Second appeal filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue was again dismissed on the ground that due to amendment brought in the Statute with retrospective effect the petitioner cannot perfect his right by adverse possession over the Gaon Sabha land.

4. It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amendment was brought in 1976 but however, since by the said time he perfected his rights by adverse possession and no suit for ejectment was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, he is entitled for declaration and the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the suit. Relying upon the provision of Section 341 of the Act read with Section 29 of Indian Limitation Act, it has been urged that the suit for ejectment having not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, he has perfected his right under Section 210 as it then stood and once he cannot be ejected he is entitled to a declaration of his right as claimed in the suit and the same ought to have been decreed. In support of the contention, he has placed reliance upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shitala Prasad and others v. Bans Bahore and others, 1974 RD 84.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

6. It may be relevant to trace legislative history of Section 210. Prior to amendment in 1976, the said Section read as under :

“Section 210. Failure to file suit under Section 209 or to execute decree obtained thereunder.—If a suit is not brought under Section 209 or a decree obtained in any such suit is not executed within the period of limitation provided for the filing of the suit or the execution of the decree, the person taking or retaining possession shall-

(i) where the land forms part of holding of a bhumidhar, or sirdar, become a sirdar thereof and the rights, title and interest of an asami, if any, on such land shall be extinguished,

(ii) where the land forms part of the holding of an asami, on behalf of the Gaon Sabha becomes an asami thereof holding from year to year,

(iii) In any case to which the provisions of clause (b) of Section 209, apply, become a sirdar or asami holding from year to year as if he had been admitted to the possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha."

7. Vide Section 15 of U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976) Section 210 was amended and substituted by following :

“15. Amendment of Section 210.—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 o