The court established that there is no limitation for filing a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, affirming the petitioners' continuous possession and rights over the disputed land.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Sri. S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act stating that they were tenant of the plot in question since before the date of vesting according they became sirdar and continued in possession, as such, they acquired right under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The plaint case was also to the effect that petitioners were recorded as occupant in 1356 Fasli over plot in question and remained in cultivatory possession in 1359 fasli, as such, petitioners had acquired adhivasi right in respect to plot in question. Gaon Sabha filed a suit against the petitioners which was dismissed on 1.11.1965 with liberty to Gaon Sabha to file regular suit. Gaon Sabha also initiated a proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was dropped. In suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, State of U.P. filed a written statement denying the plaint allegations with respect to right, title and interest of the petitioners. Trial Court/ Extra Officer/ Assistant Collector First Class, Faizabad vide judgment dated 31.3.1980 dismissed the plaintiff's suit. Petitioners filed an appeal before Commissioner against the judgment of Trial Court dated 31.3.1980 which was registered as appeal No. 360. The Additional Commissioner heard the aforementioned appeal and dismissed the same vide judgment dated 1.10.1981. Petitioners filed a second appeal before Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad which was registered as second appeal No. 5 (z) of 1981-82. The learned member Board of Revenue U.P. at Allahabad has heard the second appeal and dismissed the same vide judgment dated 23.11.1990. Hence this writ petition on behalf of the petitioners for the following relief:-

" Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 23.11.1990 passed by respondent no.1, order dated 1.10.1981 passed by respondent no.2 and the order dated 31.3.1980 passed by respondent no.3 to the writ petition."

3. This Court has entertained the matter on 18.2.1991 and granted interim protection staying the dispossession of the petitioners from the land in dispute. The interim order dated 18.2.1991 was further extended and continued vide subsequent order dated 16.4.1991.

4. No counter affidavit has been filed by State or Gaon Sabha even after expiry of more than 33 years hence there is no option except to decide the writ petition on the basis of averment made in the writ petition.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that Gaon Sabha had filed the suit under Section 211-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the petitioners which was dismissed on 1.11.1965 as well as proceeding initiated under Section 122- B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the petitioners was dropped with liberty to Gaon Sabha to file regular suit but Gaon Sabha has not filed any suit against the petitioners in respect to the plot in question. He further submitted that petitioners were recorded tenant of the plot in question since before the date of vesting, as such, the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected in any manner. He further submitted that petitioners were recorded as occupant over the plot in question in 1356 fasli and were recorded in cultivatory possession in 1359 fasli, as such, the petitioners became the adhivasi/ sirdar of the plot in question. He further submitted that oral evidence was also adduced by the petitioners before the Trial Court but Trial Court has decided the suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R Act in arbitrary and casual manner without discussing the evidence adduced by the parties in accordance with law. He further submitted that there is no limitation for filing suit under Section