ORDER

S.N. Singh, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of proceedings u/s 209 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.

2. One Lodhwa was the tenure-holder of the plots in suit. He died on 25-4-1953. On his death the plots in suit came in possession of Smt. Surji the married daughter of Lodhwa and after the death of Smt. Surji which followed soon after her husband came in possession of the same. At the time when Lodhwa died, in accordance with the law in force then there were no heirs of Lodhwa with the result that the property went to the Gaon Samaj. Since after the death of Lodhwa Smt. Surji and her husband came in possession their possession was considered to be unlawful by the Gaon Samaj. Gaon Samaj treating them as trespassers proceeded under Rule 115-C of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules for their ejectment and got them ejected and took possession on 22 -7-1954. Thereafter the Gram Samaj leased out the disputed plots to the Junior High School, Chandra Bhushanganj, district Rae Bareli Petitioner No. 1. It appears that the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was amended by Act XVI of 1953 by which amendment sister and sister's sons were made legal heirs to a tenure-holder and this amendment was directed to have effect retrospectively from the date of vesting. The result of this amendment was that although at the time of the death of Lodhwa Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were not his legal heirs but by virtue of the amendment they were deemed to be heirs and legal representatives of the deceased tenureholder Lodhwa from the time of his death.

3. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 Sahib Din and others having given the above facts instituted the present suit on 29-7-1956 for the ejectment of the Petitioner No. 1 treating the possession of Petitioner No. 1 as that of a trespasser.

4. This suit was contested by the Petitioners on the grounds inter alia that Lodhwa died heirless and the Gram Samaj, Bahariya, came into possession, Smt. Surji and Jugeshwar who were trespassers were ejected and lease executed in favour of Petitioner No. 1 which was said to be in possession as a matter of right. The suit was alleged to be time barred and not maintainable in view of defective notice u/s 80 of the Code of Civil procedure.

5. The Judicial Officer and the Additional Collector (J) acting as Additional Commissioner, Rae Bareli, dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was bad on account of defective notice u/s 80 of the CPC and that the suit was barred by time. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 preferred a second appeal against the two concurrent decisions of the Judicial Officer and the Additional Commissioner. The Board of Revenue reversed the judgment of the two subordinate authorities and decreed the suit as prayed. It held the notice to be valid and further held that the suit was not barred by time consequently decreed the suit.

6. The Petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order of the opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the Board of Revenue has committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record in holding that the suit was within time and that the notice u/s 80 CPC was not defective inasmuch as the Plaintiff had amended the plaint and no notice of the amended plaint which changed the cause of action had been given to the Petitioners. It was also argued that at the time when Lodhwa died the property in suit vested in Gram Samaj, subsequent legislation could not divest the Gram Samaj hence the Plaintiff did not get any interest in the property in suit.

7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on this point but I am of opinion that this petition lacks force and should be dismissed. Taking the last question about vesting and divesting of the property this will be seen that the legislature in very clear and unambiguous words amended the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act with retrospective effect by Act XVI of 1953 and there c