This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution arising out of proceeings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It raises a question of limitation.

The dispute relates to plots nos. 30/1, 34 and 36. These plots were the fixed rate tenancy of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. They mortgaged the plots with the ancestors of the contesting respondents. Plots nos. 30/1 and 34 were mortgaged in the year 1876 while plot no. 36 was mortgaged in the year 1894. These plots were recorded in the name of the petitioners as Bhumidhars in the basic year and the contesting respondents were recorded as Assamis of the same. On the publication of the records under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the contesting respondents filed an objection claiming Bhumidhari and Sirdari rights over the plots in dispute, Their case was that the interest of the mortgagors in the plots nos. 30/1 and 34 had been extinguished by lapse of time as no suit for redemption has been filed within a period of 60 years of the date of the mortgage. Thus the mortgagors interest in the land had come to an end in the year 1936 and the contesting respondents being in possession throughout and for a period much over twelve years from the date of the extinguishment of the mortgage had acquired independent rights in the plots and were entitled to be recorded as Bhumidhars of the same on the coming into force of the U. P. Zumindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. As regards plot no. 36 case set up was that an application under Section 12 of the Agriculturist Relief Act had been filed by the mortgagors which was allowed by the trial court and a deposit of the amount found due had been made but no Oakhal was taken from the contesting respondents, that the order of the trial court was, reversed by the appellate court and the respondents had continued in possession of the land throughout that on the coming into force of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act no suit was filed against them either under section 202 or 209 of that Act and they had thus acquired sirdari and thereafter Bhumidhari rights over the plot in dispute being in adverse possession of the same for a period in excess of statutory period prescribed for a suit for ejectment.

It will thus be seen that the claim to plots no. 30/1 and 34 was laid on the ground of the extinction of the interest of the petitioners in the land in dispute under section 28 of the limitation Act and that to plot no. 36 on the basis of the provisions of Sections 204 and 210 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

The Consolidation Officer allowed the objection of the contesting res pondents and upheld their claim on the basis of their long possession and the extinguishment of the title and interest of the petitioner. On appeal the order was affirmed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who also held that the petitioners title as mortgagors of the plots nos. 30/1 and 34 had been extingu ished in 1936 by the expiry of the period of 60 years provided for the filing of a suit for redemption, the mortgage being of the year 1876, the respo ndents being in possession of the plots in dispute were found to have acquired independent right under the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the coming into force of that Act. As regards plot no. 36 the Settle ment Officer (Consolidation) held that a suit under section 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act having been decreed against the respondents but they not having been dispossessed from the same within three years of coming into force of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the respon dents had acquired sirdari rights over it under section 204 of that Act.

On revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation affirmed that order. It agreed with the view of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) that the petitioned interest in plot nos. 30/1 and 34 had been extinguished by lapse of t