JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated August 31, 1977 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, allowing appeal No. 43 of 1975-76 dismissing plaintiff's suit by setting aside judgment and decree dated October 31, 1975 passed by S.D.O. Kalpi, district Jalaun decreeing plaintiff's suit under Section 229-B of Act I of 1951. 2. Raja Ram and others had filed a suit against U.P. State and others under Section 229-B of Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect of plots Nos. 487/9, 487/10 and 509/1 total area 6.23 acres situate in village Urkara Khurd, Pargana Kalpi district Jalaun with the allegations that the plaintiff's father Gokul and defendant No. 5 Gopi Charan were hereditary tenants prior to the abolition of zamindari and become Sirdar thereafter, that the plaintiffs had been in possession after the death of their father but the name of their father was still continuing in class 4 and that the Gaon Sabha had no concern with the land in suit. They, therefore, prayed for a declaration in their favour. 3. U.P. State denied the case of the plaintiff and alleged that the land belonged to Gaon Sabha. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It has been argued that the first appeal was time-barred; that the right vested cannot be divested and the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was in possession since prior to the abolition of zamindari and had become hereditary tenant and consequently Sirdar was not liable to be set aside; that even continuous possession from 1364 Fasli was enough for perfection of the rights of the plaintiff as more than 12 years possession was completed before amendment of limitation of 30 years from October 1971 came into force; that oral evidence for possession was not considered by the lower appellate court. Reliance has been placed on 1978 R.D. 118, 1972 R.D. 53, and 1982 R.D. 225. 6. Reliance has been placed on 1978 R.D. 118, 1972 R.D. 53, and 1982 R.D. 225. 6. It has argued in reply that the first appeal was within time as 4 months were taken in obtaining copies and the were taken in obtaining copies and the judgment of the trial court was dated October 31, 1975 and decree was signed on November 4, 1975 and the copies were applied for October 10, 1975 and December 8, 1975 and copies were received on February 20, 1975 and the appeal was filed on February 26, 1976; that the provision of no limitation against Gaon Sabha's land is retrospective as has been held in 1979 R.D. 226, therefore, the argument that right was perfected before 1379 Fasli, if possession from 1364 Fasli is taken is wrong and the lower appellate court rightly held that as no paper entry existed for possession prior to Z.A. Act and the possession prior to it was not proved and is highly justified. 7. It has held in Nagar Mahapalika, Kanpur v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others 1982 R.D. 226 as follows: "Appendix III read with Rule 338 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rule, has expressly provided, by Entry 39-A that there is no limitation prescribed for a suit by the Gaon Sabha for declaration of rights. The limitation of 12 years from the 1st July following the date of the computation was prescribed for a suit by the Gaon Sabha under Section 209 of the Act under clause (iv) (b) of Entry 30 of the October 14, 1971 that was enhanced to 30 years. It could not be said that a suit under Section 209(1)(b) by the Gaon Sabha against the defendants could be decreed even if it was brought after the prescribed period of limitation. This necessitates an enquiry into the question whether a suit filed after October 14, 1971 with effect from which date the period of limitation for a suit by Gaon Sabha under Section 209(1)(b) was enhanced from 13 years to 30 years could be said to be barred by the fact that the period of 12 years continuous possession of defendants had been completed before October 14, 1971. So far as the present suit is concerned after the deletion of clause (iii) from Section 209 with retrospective effect no court can dismiss a suit by the Gaon Sabha on the ground that it is barred by limitation at least no until July 1, 1982 of the period of 30 years limitation prescribed for such suit has not yet run out from July 1, 1952 which was the date on which U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was enforced. That would undoubtedly by the position if the matter had been tried by the courts after June 15, 1976 which was the date of coming into force of U.P. Ordinance No. 17 of 1976, but in the present cases even the judgment of the Board of Revenue in the two second appeals arising from the two suits filed by the Nagar Mahapalika against the defendants was passed on April 30, 1976. The ordinance had not come into force at that time and since the enhancement of the limitation from 12 years to 30 years for a suit by the Gaon Sabha under Section 209 which had come into force on October 14, 1971 the defendants could still show that they had prescribed title to the Land as Sirdars thereof under Section 210 by having come in adverse possession for more than 12 years before October 14, 1971 so that the subsequent enhancement of the limitation for a suit under Section 209(1)(b) could not defeat the right to the land which they had already acquired and the suits were liable to be dismissed on the merits on the ground that the defendants having already prescribed title to the land as Sirdars thereof, the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the land on the date of suit. The result is that the suit having been filed after the amendment of the period of limitation from 12 years to 30 years it was for the defendants to establish that they had acquired Sirdari rights in the land in suit under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act before October 14, 1971 by completion of 12 years continuous adverse possession from July 1, next following the date on which their possession began. Held that the burden of proving possession within 12 years next before the date of the suit has wrongly ben placed by the Board of Revenue, the Additional Commissioner and the Assistant Collector on the petitioner Nagar Mahapalika as if the suit was entirely a suit under Section 209 and the limitation prescribed therefore, was 12 years. Hence the instant suits were remanded to trial court to be heard and decided afresh in accordance with law". In it had never been held that the effect of U.P. Ordinance No. 17 of 1976 was not retrospective and its effect in that suit was not decided by the Hon'ble Judge although it was so requested on behalf of Nagar Palika and it was left open to be decided by the trial court. Therefore, the argument that the appellant had prescribed rights of Sirdari by more than 12 years since 1364 Fasli is not well founded if the retrospective effect of amendment of Section 210 of Act I of 1951 is considered. 8. It has held in Chhattar Singh v. Sahayak Shanchalak Chakbandi, U.P., Lucknow, Camp at Meerut and others as follows:- " In view of the recent amendment made in the provisions of Sections 209 and 210 of the U.P.Z.A. and Land Reforms Act even if the petitioner is in possession over the property of Gaon Sabha for 12 years he would not acquire Sirdari right in the disputed land. When the petitioner does not acquire Sirdari rights in view of the provisions of Section 15 of U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976, his case does not stand on either side due to the provisions of Section 49 of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977. The aforesaid provisions does not confer Sirdari rights upon the petitioners and the aforesaid provisions will be construed in the light of the previous history. The petitioner lost his Sirdari right due to retrospective operation of the provisions that right does not revive due to later amendment effected in the aforesaid section by Section 49 of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977. The petitioner does not get Sirdari right under Section 49 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977." 9. The petitioner lost his Sirdari right due to retrospective operation of the provisions that right does not revive due to later amendment effected in the aforesaid section by Section 49 of U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977. The petitioner does not get Sirdari right under Section 49 of the U.P. Act No. 8 of 1977." 9. I, therefore, hold that the effect of retrospective amendment of Section 210 of Act I of 1951 prescribing no limitation against Gaon Sabha's land even if it is taken for granted that the appellant had been in possession over the Gaon Sabha's land for more than 12 years before filing the suit or before amendment of limitation enhancing 12 years limitation to 30 years before October 14, 1971 the plaintiff would not acquire Sirdari rights in the disputed land, therefore, the lower appellate court rightly decided the matter in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 10. There is no entry in favour of the appellant prior to 1364 Fasli, therefore, the lower appellate court rightly discarded the oral evidence regarding claim of possession of the plaintiff prior to abolition of Zamindari. The appeal, therefore has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of the above this appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court are confirmed.