JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Mangal Singh and two others for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and the Consolidation Officer whereby the Petitioners were not held to be sirdars of the plots in dispute. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer had recorded the finding that the Petitioners were in possession as trespassers but the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation, though accepted the finding of fact, declared the status of the Petitioners to be that of asamis. 2. The only point argued before me was that when the Gaon Samaj did not institute a suit for the ejectment of the Petitioners within the prescribed period of three years, their possession matured and they acquired the status of sirdars. This contention was repelled by the consolidation authorities on the ground that the period of three years limitation was to be counted upto the stage of the publication of the statement u/s 11 and as the period had not expired by then the Petitioners could not later on become sirdars. 3. Section 49 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, is the only provision which places a bar on the jurisdiction of a civil or revenue Court. Consequently, if inspite of this provision of law, a revenue suit for ejectment was maintainable and had to be instituted, the period can be counted upto any stage and not necessarily upto the stage of the publication of the statement u/s 11. The material portion of Section 49 of the Act runs as below: No person shall institute any suit or other proceedings in any civil or revenue Court...with respect to any other matter in regard to which a suit or application could be filed under the provisions of this Act. 4. It is true that in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, there is no provision under which a suit or application can lie for the ejectment of a trespasser; but by virtue of the various provisions contained in the Act, the status of a trespassar can, at the stage of Sections 11 and 12, be declared and later on he can be dispossessed by not being allotted any Chak. It is thus by implication that under the provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, a trespasser can during the consolidation proceedings be ejected. With regard to an asami, there would merely be a declaration of the status and later on a separate Chak shall be allotted to him keeping in mind that if he can later on be dispossessed the land shall revert to the original tenure-holder or to the authority to which the land in fact belongs. 5. The above interpretation is in consonance with the other provisions of the Act with regard to suits which had already been instituted. Section 12(5) of the Act lays down that upon the publication of the statement u/s 11, all suits or proceedings in the Court of first instance, appeal, reference or revision in which a question of title or a question whether any person is a sirdar or an adhivasi or asami has been raised, shall be stayed and shall thereafter be disposed of in the manner prescribed. In other words, the question of title or status of person shall not be determined in the civil or revenue litigation but shall be adjudicated upon in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder. It is of significance that a declaration at the stage of Section 12 can pertain to the tide or status of a person and not with regard to allotment of chaks, that is, his possession or dispossession from the land. A similar provision has been incorporated in Section 22(2) of the Act with regard to pending suits. It has been laid own therein that upon the publication of the Statement of Proposals u/s 29(1) of the Act, all suits or proceedings in the Court of first instance, appeal, reference or revision, in which a question of title or a question whether any person is a sirdar, adhivasi or asami is raised, shall be stayed. The order of stay contemplated by Section 22 is for perpetuity. My attention has not been drawn to any provision in the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, nor in the rules framed thereunder, which may provide when the stay order shall stand vacated or the civil or revenue court can take further proceedings. The order of stay contemplated by Section 22 is for perpetuity. My attention has not been drawn to any provision in the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, nor in the rules framed thereunder, which may provide when the stay order shall stand vacated or the civil or revenue court can take further proceedings. This will, therefore, make it clear that if an ejectment suit has been instituted, the civil or revenue court, can, at the most, record a finding on the title or status of the alleged trespasser on the basis of? decision on the objection u/s 12 of the Act, but the civil or revenue court shall not have the power to take any further steps i.e., to dispossess the alleged trespasser. 6. The Legislature could not contemplate institution of suits which shall never be decided. In these circumstances it will be but proper that a liberal interpretation should be given to the provisions of Section 49, on the lines already indicated above. To put it differently, if the reliefs sought for in a civil or revenue suit can be granted under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, such suits cannot be instituted in view of Section 49 of the Act. When the institution of the suit is barred, it is not necessary for anyone to institute a suit. 7. The consolidation proceedings start from the stage of the notification u/s 4 of the Act. In other words, the prescribed period of limitation should be counted upto the date of the declaration u/s 4 and not the publication of the statement u/s 11 or at any other stage of the consolidation proceedings. 8. The adverse possession of the Petitioners had commenced from 1-4-1955 and the prescribed period of three years had not expired by the time the declaration was made u/s 4. The Petitioners were, therefore, in the eye of law trespassers but they are lucky enough in obtaining a declaration from the Regional Deputy Director of Consolidation that they are asamis. The order passed in so far as it is favourable to the Petitioners cannot be interfered with in the present proceeding commenced by the Petitioners themselves, all the more when interested persons have not challenged that order. This Court has, therefore, no option except to maintain the order of Respondent No. 1. 9. The petition is hereby dismissed surnmarilv.