ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mir-zapur camp at Ghazipur dated 24-10-1972 whereby the petitioner's claim was negatived on the ground that Deoki, ancestor of the present petitioners, did not take steps to recover possession over the disputed land within the prescribed time hence his right had become extinguished, and the revision petitions filed by the present petitioners were dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioners have come to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has patently erred in negativing the claim of the petitioners on the ground of limitation. According to him the petitioners had filed a suit for injunction and possession against the contesting opposite parties on 18-10-1956 hence their claim was well within time and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. 3. Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has replied that the claim of the present petitioners was rightly negatived by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as the suit was filed on 18-10-1956 in Civil Court with a prayer for injunction and possession, but the petitioners were not in possession over the disputed land and the relief of possession could not be granted by the Civil Court at that time when the suit was brought against the contesting opposite parties. He has emphasised that by adding the relief of injunction the petitioner could not confer jurisdiction on the civil court. No suit for ejectment of the contesting opposite party Dwarka was brought by the petitioners or their ancestors within time under Sec, 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act hence the right of the petitioners or their ancestor Deoki was rightly negatived by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. No suit for ejectment of the contesting opposite party Dwarka was brought by the petitioners or their ancestors within time under Sec, 209 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act hence the right of the petitioners or their ancestor Deoki was rightly negatived by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has also emphasised that Deoki was recorded as sub-tenant in the year 1356 fasli hence he was not recorded occupant within the meaning of the provisions of Section 20 (b) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, hence no valid right or title accrued to the petitioners or their ancestor Deoki under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and on that score also the petitioners writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Lastly it has been submitted that if the petitioners claimed adhivasi right on the ground of being sub-tenants of the disputed land, they or their ancestors Deoki had not sought the relief of possession under Sec. 20 U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act within the prescribed period hence the petitioners right could not be recognised by the Consolidation authorities and since the petitioners right has not been recognised, the impugned judgment has done substantial justice between the parties and does not deserve to be quashed in writ jurisdiction. 5. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties, The Deputy Director of Consolidation has no doubt accepted the claim of the petitioners on the ground of being recorded occupants in the year 1356 Fasli. but he did not recognise the claim of the petitioners as they had not sought the relief of possession within 30 months from the date of vesting. The reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are not correct but to my mind the conclusions arrived by the Deputy Director of Consolidation are correct. 6. It is true that If the petitioners ancestor Deoki is termed as 'recorded occupant, in law the petitioners claim could not he negatived due to the fact that no suit for possession was brought within 30 months from the date of vesting. 6. It is true that If the petitioners ancestor Deoki is termed as 'recorded occupant, in law the petitioners claim could not he negatived due to the fact that no suit for possession was brought within 30 months from the date of vesting. When one becomes adhivasi under the provisions of Section 20 (b) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, he acquires Sirdari rights under the provisions of Section 240-B of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act on 30th Oct. 1954 and on the basis of acquiring sirdari rights he gets a fresh start of limitation which would expire on 30th June, 1958. Thus in my opinion the reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for negativing the claim of the petitioners are not sound, 7. Before me a pertinent question has arisen as to whether the petitioners really acquire right in the disputed land on the basis of their ancestor Deoki being recorded as sub-tenant in the year 1356 Fasli. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the rulings reported in 1964 Rev. Dec. 303: (1964 All LJ 805) (SC) Amba Prasad v. Mahboob Ali Shah. 1968 Rev. Dec. 181: (1968 All LJ 313) (SC) Smt. Sonawati v. Sri Ram 1976 Rev Dec. 237: ( AIR 1976 SC 1485 ), Vishwa Vi jay Bharti v. Fakhrul Hassan and AIR 1966 All 356 : (1966 All LJ 826) (FB) Mosim Ali v. Ganga Prasad in support of his contentions that the entry of sub-tenancy in favour of Deoki was the entry of occupant, within the meaning of the pro-virions of Section 20 (b) of U. P. Z. A, and L. R. Act, hence he had acquired adhivari and Sirdari rights In the disputed 9. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has drawn my attention to the ruling reported in 1972 Rev. Dec. 414: (1972 All LJ 854) Mustafa Khan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and the ruling reported in 1974 Rev. Dec. 188: (1974 All LJ 706) (FB), Basudeo v. Board of Revenue wherein it has been emphasised that the entry as sub-tenant is not the entry of occupant within the meaning of the provisions of Section 20 (b) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Dec. 188: (1974 All LJ 706) (FB), Basudeo v. Board of Revenue wherein it has been emphasised that the entry as sub-tenant is not the entry of occupant within the meaning of the provisions of Section 20 (b) of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. According to the contesting opposite parties the petitioners ancestor Deoki was not recorded as 'occupant' within the meaning of the provisions of U. P. Z. A, and L. R. Act, hence the petitioners are not sirdars of the disputed land and they are not entitled to extended period of lim tation commencing from 1st July, 1955. The reported rulings are divided on the question as to whether the entry of subtenancy is an entry of occupant within the meaning of the provisions of Section 20 (b) of U.P. Z. A, and L. R. Act. The ruling reported in 1974 Rev. Dee, 188: (1974 All LJ 706) Basudeo v. Board of Revenue is a five judges Full Bench ruling and It has observed that the entry of sub-tenancy is not an entry of 'Occupant* hence I think that the petitioners or their ancestor Deoki did not acquire adhivasi and Sirdari rights in the disputed land, 10. However, for the sake of arguments It may be assumed that the petitioners and their ancestor Deoki did acquire adhivasi and sirdari rights in. the disputed land, yet the question arises in the present case as to whether their right subsists in the disputed land when the consolidation started in the village. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has arrived at the conclusion that their rights became extinct as no suit was brought for the eviction of the contesting opposite parties within 30 months from the date of vesting. The reasoning given by the Deputy Director of Consideration is not correct to my mind, but his conclusion is correct as the petitioners had brought a suit for injunction and possession against contesting opposite party Dwarika on 18-10-50 In the court of munsif Ghazipur, 11. It Is well known that a suit for possession did not lie in the civil court alone was competent to entertain a suit for possession under Section 209 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act on 18-10-1956. It is also well settled that a plaintiff can get relief of injunction only when he 5s in possession over the disputed land. 12. It is also well settled that a plaintiff can get relief of injunction only when he 5s in possession over the disputed land. 12. On the findings recorded by the consolidation authorities in the present case it is evident that the petitioners ancestor Deoki was not in possession over the disputed land from 1357 Fasli, as no competent suit was brought by the petitioners within the statutory period against the contesting opposite party in a competent court, hence their right became extinct In the disputed land long before the start of the consolidation in the village. By adding the relief of injunction the petitioners could not confer jurisdiction upon the civil court on 18-10-1956 when they brought the suit against the contesting opposite party Dwarika. In this view of the matter the petitioners cannot maintain that their right remained intact on the date when the consolidation started in the village. 13. In my opinion the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the right of the petitioners had extinguished due to lapse of time in not bringing a suit for ejectment against the contesting opposite party is correct though on different ground. 14. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that Deoki was subtenant of the disputed land on the data Immediately preceding the date of vesting, hence he became adhivasi and sirdar of the disputed land, and the petitioners being heirs of Deoki are entitled to maintain the writ petition. 15. It is true that a sub-tenant under Section 29 (a) of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act before U. P. Act no. 20 of 1954 did acquire adhivasi right in the land, but he could recover possession over that land within one year from the date of vesting under Section 20 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act as is evident from serial no. 5 Appendix 3 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules, 16. 20 of 1954 did acquire adhivasi right in the land, but he could recover possession over that land within one year from the date of vesting under Section 20 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act as is evident from serial no. 5 Appendix 3 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Rules, 16. In the present case on the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioners ancestor Deoki was not In possession from 1357 Fasli and the petitioners have failed to indicate as to whether they or their ancestor Deoki had taken steps against the contesting opposite party Dwarika to recover possession in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, hence in my opinion the petitioners have failed to establish their subsisting claim of Adhivasi cum Sirdari right in the disputed land on the day when consolidation started in the village. To my mind even if Deoki had acquired any right under the provisions of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act that became extinguished long before the start of the consolidation operation in the village as the petitioners or Deoki had failed to take proper steps against the contesting opposite party in a competent court. 17. For the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merits and it is accordingly dismissed but I make no order as to costs.