ORDER

K.B. Asthana, J. - By this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution the order passed by the Board of Revenue in a Second Appeal and an order passed by the Additional Commissioner in a First Appeal have been brought up for being quashed by a writ of certiorari. The Petitioners Tej Bahadur Singh and Ram Bilas were the Defendants in a suit brought by Jai Kumar Singh, Respondent No. 4 to the petition, u/s 229B read with Section 209 of the UPZA and LR Act for a declaration that the Plaintiff alongwith his other brothers was the Bhumidhar and Sirdar in possession of the lands in dispute and in the alternative, if found out of possession, then decree for possession be awarded. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the disputed land was the tenancy of his brother Nand Prasad after whose death Smt. Ram Dulari, brother's widow came into possession of it. It was further alleged that when Smt. Ram Dulari died, the Plaintiff along with his brother started cultivating the lands as the heirs of Nand Prasad and since the Defendants tried to assert their claim, hence the suit. It may be stated that the suit was filed on 18-2-1960 about 7 years after the death of Smt. Ram Dulari. The defence was that the Defendants were the heirs of Nand Prasad being the daughter's sons and they under the law were entitled to succeed. It was also alleged that on the death of Smt. Ram Dulari which took place on 24-3-1953 they as heirs came into possession and have been in possession ever since then. It was pleaded that even if the Plaintiff had any right or title, that was extinguished u/s 210 of the UPZA and LR Act as no suit was brought by the Plaintiff u/s 209 of that Act within the period prescribed. It is not necessary to state the other pleas raised in defence. The Assistant Collector, I Class who tried the suit dismissed it on the finding that the Defendants came into possession of the disputed lands on the death of Smt. Ram Dulari which occurred on 24-3-1953 and the Plaintiff though was under the law the rightful heir, was not entitled to any decree he not having brought the suit u/s 209 of the UPZA and LR Act within three years of 1st July, 1953 his and his brother's right or title was extinguished and the Defendants became Sirdars by virtue of the provisions of Section 210 of the UPZA and LR Act. It may be stated that the trial court did not accept the defence plea that as daughter's sons the Defendants were the rightful heirs. The Plaintiff then appealed. The learned Additional Commissioner who heard the appeal allowed it mainly on the finding that inasmuch as soon after the death of Smt. Ram Dulari a dispute between the parties arose about mutation and that matter was not finally decided till the year 1957 the Plaintiff was entitled to get the benefit of the period of pendency of those proceedings and the present suit was not barred by limitation and no right u/s 210 of the UPZA and LR Act accrued to the Defendants. The Board of Revenue in Second Appeal by the Defendants confirmed this decision of the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. The Defendants have now come up to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of the decision of the Additional Commissioner and that of the Board of Revenue.

2. Sri R.B. Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged two grounds in support of the petition. His first ground was that the Petitioners were the rightful heirs under the law and the Board of Revenue manifestly erred in holding to the contrary. Learned Counsel submitted that on 24-3-1953 when Smt. Ram Dulari died, u/s 171 of the UPZA and LR Act daughter's sons were to be preferred as heirs as against the brothers and the subsequent amendment of the Act by UP Act No. XVI of 1953 could not be read so as to affect the vested right accruing to the Petitioners there being no indication in that Act that it was applicable retrospectively. There is no substance whatsoever in this submission. The provisions of t