Judgement – Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Court and common questions are involved for determination in these writ petitions, therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the writ petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By means of these writ petitions, the petitioners State and Yakoob Ali Khan have prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 7-1-1983 and 22-10-1984 passed by the Prescribed Authority Kichha at Rudrapur, and I Additional District Judge, Nainital. The Prescribed Authority had held that the objection filed by the petitioner Yakoob Ali Khan was barred by time, hence the same being not entertainable was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner Yakoob Ali Khan as well as State of U.P. went up in appeal and the Additional District Judge also dismissed the Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1983 and Ceiling Appeal No. 37 of 1983 respectively vide judgment and order dated 22-10-1984. 3. At the outset it may be mentioned that the appellate court has decide9 Ceiling Appeal No. 17 of 1983, C. Shivasani Vs. State of U.P. and others, Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1983 Yakoob Ali Khan Vs. Hem Chandra Tyagi and others and Ceiling Appeal No. 37 of 1983, State of U.P. Vs. Hem Chandra Tyagi and others by a common judgment as all these appeals arose out of the same judgment and similar controversy was involved in all these ceiling appeals. It may be mentioned that the State of U.P. has assailed the judgment and order dated 22-10-1984 (Annexure NO.2 to the writ petition) alone passed by the Appellate Court while the petitioner Yaloob Ali Khan has challenged the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the I Additional District Judge both. 4. For a just decision of the case, a reference to the brief facts is necessary. Notice under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1960 (for short the Ceiling Act) was issued to the tenure holder Yakoob Ali Khan on 28-1-1975 by the Prescribed Authority, who filed objection alleging that if land in his cultivation had to be declared surplus then the land of plot no. 2 and 3 be declared surplus otherwise the notice being illegal be discharged. 2 and 3 be declared surplus otherwise the notice being illegal be discharged. The Prescribed Authority after filing of objections decided the case on 18-3-1975 and declared 23.32 hectare irrigated land as surplus pertaining to plot no. 3 measuring 408 Bigha, plot no. 2 measuring 20 Bigha 13 Biswa and plot no. 4 measuring 11 Biswa situated in village Chachar as well as plot no. 83 measuring 98 Bigha 1 Biswa, plot no. 85 measuring 20 Bigha 5 Biswa, plot no. 86 measuring 1 Bigha and plot no. 87 measuring 4 Bigha 3 Biswa of village Gaughat Tahsil Kichha, District Nainital (now U.S. Nagar). After the judgment was delivered Sri Hem Chand Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi filed application for permission to implead them as parties to the case. Their application was disposed of the same day with an order to the effect "judgment already given this case K.W.F." by the Prescribed Authority. 5. Hem Chand Tyagi filed appeal No. 212 of 1975 against the said order, while the petitioner Yakub AJi Khan filed appeal no. 316 of 1975 against the aforesaid order. The appeal filed by the petitioner was decided by the then Civil Judge Nainital vide judgment and order dated 10-061976 whereby relief of 2 hectares more land was given to the appellant for his third adult son and remaining part of the judgment was maintained. Appeal No 282 of 1975 was dismissed on 28-061977 being not maintainable as appellants were not parties to the proceedings under the Act. Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi filed writ petition before the High Court, which was decided on 15-1-1979 thereby the judgment dated 15-3-1975 passed the Prescribed Authority as well as judgment and decree passed on 28-6-77 by the Civil Judge Nainital were quashed and the case was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the issue whether petitioners Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi are the tenure holders or not and in case it is established that they are tenure holders then to decide the case on merits. It was also observed by the High Court that it shall be open to the petitioners to apply before the Prescribed Authority at Kichha and Aligarh and in that event the State would choose to proceed against the petitioners only at one place. 6. It was also observed by the High Court that it shall be open to the petitioners to apply before the Prescribed Authority at Kichha and Aligarh and in that event the State would choose to proceed against the petitioners only at one place. 6. After remand of the case, the State of U .P. chose to proceed against Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi in the court of the Prescribed Authority Kichha at Rudrapur and not before the Prescribed Authority Koil District Aligarh. Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithilesh Tyagi filed objections before the Prescribed Authority under Section 11 (2) of the Act alleging therein that their adverse possession was duly recorded against the original tenure holder Mumtaz Jahan Haidar and others during record operations held in 1958-59 in Class 20. The original tenure holder never filed any suit for their ejectment, hence they acquired hereditary tenancy rights against the original tenure holder under the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act being in adverse possession. It was alleged that on the appointed date, i.e. 8-6-1973, they were tenure holders of the disputed land as they had acquired rights by prescription and statutory provisions of law. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short ZA & LR Act) came into force in the district Nainital on 1-7-1969 and on this date of vesting they were Sirdars of the suit land and Yakoob Ali Khan never held possession over the land since 1958 till the date of filing objection, Le. 30-7-1982. It was also alleged that since they were not party to proceedings in Suit No. 2/1 of 1972 therefore the decision of the suit was not binding on them. Moreover, since the Second Appeal arising from the said suit was pending before the Board of Revenue, hence the judgment of the trial court and the first appellate court in Suit No. 2/1 of 1972, Smt. Mumtaz Jahan Haider Vs. Yakub Ali had not yet become final. It was also alleged that since the record operations held in 1958-59 till date, they had been continuously recorded on the disputed land in revenue record and their names find place in 1374 Fasli, when by statutory provisions, a person recorded in adverse possession acquired Adhivasi rights and later-on by virtue of Government Notification, they had become Sirdar and thereafter Bhumldhar of the said land. According to them under the provisions of ZA & L.R. Act, an Adhivasi can not be evicted and per Section 230Aof the Z.A. & L.R. Act, the land of the Adhivasi cannot be clubbed with the holding of any other person. 7. During the pendency of the said proceedings Sri C. Shivdasani through his General Power of Attorney Holder filed an application on 27-8-1982 before the Prescribed Authority for impleading him as party to the proceeding contending that since record operation held in 1958-59 corresponding to 1366-67 Fasli, his name had been recorded in Class 20 being in adverse possession against Smt. Mumtaz Jahan Haider and others the tenure holders in respect of plot no. 83 and 35 measuring 34 acres situate in village Gaughat, Tahsil Kichha, District Nainital. It was also contend-ed that since no suit for eviction was filed within two years hence he acquired hereditary tenancy rights in 1369 Fasli and the ZA and L.R. Act came into force in the area on 1-7-1969 which corresponds to 1377 Fasli and on the date of vesting, he became Bhumidhar of this land. The provisions of the Act came into force on 8-6-1973 and on this date, he was absolutely the tenure-holder of the disputed land, but the said land was clubbed with the land of original tenure holder without serving notice on him hence the necessity had arisen to implead him in the proceeding so as to enable him to file objection and contest the proceeding. The application dated 27-8-1962 filed by said C Shivdasani was allowed on 19-11-1982 and he was made a party to the proceeding. Consequently, he filed objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act on 3-12-1982 before the Prescribed Authority. 8. The State of U.P., Sri Yakoob Ali Khan and the objectors Hem Chandra and Mithilesh Tyagi as well as Sri C. Shivdashani adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The Prescribed Authority after considering the entire material on record passed the impugned judgment dated 7-1-1983 holding Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi to be the tenure holders of plot no. 2 measuring 20-13 Bigha and plot NO.3 measuring 413 Bigha and that they became tenure holders much (before) 8-6-1973, when the provisions of the Ceiling Act came into force. 2 measuring 20-13 Bigha and plot NO.3 measuring 413 Bigha and that they became tenure holders much (before) 8-6-1973, when the provisions of the Ceiling Act came into force. It was therefore held that the land belonging to them shall not be clubbed with the original tenure holder. The application dated 27-8-1982 of C. Shivdasani was rejected as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, Yakoob Ali, State of U.P. and Sri C. Shivdasani respectively filed the aforesaid appeals. Ultimately, after considering the material on record, the appellate court passed the impugned order as under: "The impugned judgment is partly confirmed and partly set aside to the effect that Appeal No. 23 of 1983, Yakub AU Vs. Hem Chandra and others as well as Appeal No. 37 of 1983, State Vs. Hem Chandra Tyagi and others are dismissed without costs and impugned judgment so far as it relates to Hem Chand Tyagi and Smt. Mithlesh Tyagi is confirmed. Appeal No. 17 of 1983 Sri C. Shivdasanl Vs. State of U.P. and others is allowed and impugned judgment so far as it relates to Sri C. Shivdasani is set aside and the case relating to Sri C. Shivdasani only is remanded back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal according to law and in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment and to decide the objections (cases) on merits and if objections are maintainable, to give a clear finding whether or not Sri C. Shivdasani is tenure holder of the land of plot no. 83 and 35 measuring 34 acres situated in village Gaughat, tahsil Kichha district Nainital and whether or not the said land should be excluded from the holding of Yakoob AU Khan or the original tenure holder, after considering the evidence already adduced by the parties and available on record. The evidence of parties already on record shall be the evidence of the parties and the parties shall not be allowed to adduce any further evidence. The parties concerned i.e., Sri C. Shivdasimi and Yakoob AU and State of U.P. to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 22,11-1984. Let the record of the lower court be sent back with a copy of this judgment. Let a copy of judgment be placed in the files of C.A. no. 23 and 37 of 1983." 9. The parties concerned i.e., Sri C. Shivdasimi and Yakoob AU and State of U.P. to appear before the Prescribed Authority on 22,11-1984. Let the record of the lower court be sent back with a copy of this judgment. Let a copy of judgment be placed in the files of C.A. no. 23 and 37 of 1983." 9. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, petitioner Yakoob Ali Khan has come up before this Court in the writ petition. 10. The main grounds on which the impugned judgment and orders have been challenged are that the entries in favour of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were not according to law; that on 86-1973 the respondent nos. 4 and 5 were not recorded in revenue records, rather the petitioner was recorded in Khasra of 1381 Fasli and the finding recorded by the court below to the contrary is perverse and illegal. It was contended that the limitation under Section 229B/209 of the ZA & LR Act was twelve years on 1-7-1972 and the suit of the petitioner is still pending. 11. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record. 12. The State of U.P has filed the writ petition mainly on the grounds that the learned Additional District Judge has committed an error apparent on the face of record in holding that the respondent No.3 C. Shivdasani had become Bhumidhar of plot nos. 83 and 85 area 34 acres and the learned Judge committed manifest error of law in holding that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi had perfected their title in respect of said land before enforcement of UP. Imposition of Ceiling on Land HoidingsAct1960 (the Ceiling Act) against the original tenure holder Yakub Ali Khan, respondent no. 4 as per provision of Section 3(17) of the Ceiling Act. It has also been contended that the learned Judge acted without jurisdiction to set aside the judgment and decree and the Civil Judge dated 10-6-1976 in respect of the rights of Yakub Ali Khan and the State. Before discussing the case of Sri Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi as well as Yakub Ali, I take up the case of C. Shivdasani first. 13. Before discussing the case of Sri Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi as well as Yakub Ali, I take up the case of C. Shivdasani first. 13. Before the learned appellate court, Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1983, C. Shivdasani V. State of U.P. and others was filed by C. Shivdasani, which was allowed on the ground that when the Prescribed Authority impleaded as opposite party on 19-11-1982, who filed objections under Section 11 (2) of the Ceiling Act and Yakub Ali Khan also filed counter objection thereto on 23-121982 and parties adduced their evidence, but the Prescribed Authority did not decide the objections filed under Section 11 (2) of the respondent no. 4 (C. Shivdasani) on merit and rejected the application dated 27-8-1982, as not maintainable, which had already been allowed vide order dated 19-11-1982. The learned Additional District Judge had rightly held that the Prescribed Authority ought to have decided the objections filed by the newly impleaded O.P. Sri C. Shivdasani instead of rejecting the application dated 27-8-1982, therefore, the order of the Prescribed Authority was set aside by the appellate court on the ground that Sri Shivdasani was already on record and he was allowed to file objection after affording opportunity and it was held that the Prescribed Authority committed manifest error in rejecting the application for impleadment. In my view, the order was rightly set aside and I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order impugned. 14. So far as the argument advanced by the State that the learned Additional District Judge committed manifest error of law in holding that the respondent no. 3 Shivdasani had become Bhumidhar of plot nos. 83 and 85, the same is misconceived. The learned Additional District Judge has held that the Prescribed Authority did not give a finding whether or not the appellant was a tenure holder either on the date of vesting, i.e. 1-7-1969 or when the Ceiling Act came into force i.e. 8-6-1973 in spite of the fact that there was sufficient evidence on record to probe into this question and to arrive at a definite finding. It was observed by the learned Judge that "hence to my mind, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to set aside the impugned judgment so far as it relates to Sri C. Shivdasani." Accordingly, the case relating to Sri C. Shivdasani was remanded to the Prescribed Authority for fresh disposal according to law. The Prescribed Authority was directed to decide the objections on merits and if objections are found maintainable, to give a clear finding whether or not Sri C. Shivdasani is tenure holder of the land of plot no. 83 and 35 measuring 34 acres situated in village Gaughat, Tahsil Kichha on the basis of the evidence already on record and the parties shall not be allowed to adduce any further evidence. From the said finding, it is amply clear that the learned Additional District Judge did not give any such finding that Sri C. Shivdasani had perfected his title. 15. By the impugned order, the Ceiling Appeal No. 37 of 1983 filed by the State against all the four private parties, Hem Chandra Tyagi and others was dismissed on merit. The main ground raised by the State as well as Yakub Ali Khan in their respective writ petitions is that the Additional District Judge committed manifest error of law on the face of record in holding that Hem Chandra Tyagi and Smt. Mithilesh Tyagi perfected their title. The objection filed by respondent nos. 1 and 2 (Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithilesh Tyagi) under Section i 1 (2) of the Ceiling Act on 30-11-1982 alleging that their adverse possession was duly recorded against the original tenure holder Mumtaz Jahan Haider and others during Record Operation held in 1958-59 in Class 20 and the original tenure holder never filed a suit for ejectment hence they have acquired hereditary tenancy rights the original tenure holder under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act and on 1-7-1969, they became Sirdar under Section 131 of the U.P.ZA and L. R. Act, which was enforced prior to 8-6-1973, they were tenure holder. The land belongs to them cannot be clubbed in the holdings of Yakub AIL Yakub Ali Khan had never been in possession since 1958 till they filed objections and further it was contended by the objector in Suit No. 22/1 of 1972 Smt. Mumtaj Jahan Haider and others Vs. The land belongs to them cannot be clubbed in the holdings of Yakub AIL Yakub Ali Khan had never been in possession since 1958 till they filed objections and further it was contended by the objector in Suit No. 22/1 of 1972 Smt. Mumtaj Jahan Haider and others Vs. Yakub Ali Khan, they were not party to the proceedings, hence the decision of the suit that Yakub Ali Khan is a tenure holder is not binding on them. They were also recorded in 1374 Fasli 16. The main controversy to be decided in this writ petition is whether the respondents no. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi had perfected their title before the enforcement of the Ceiling Act, which came into force on 8-6-1973. The Additional District Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of "Avtar Singh and another Vs. Prescribed Authority and others" [1981, All. L.J., 1008J, wherein it was held that if the suit for eviction was not filed against the trespasser within three years from the date of vesting, such tenure holder becomes hereditary tenant under Section 180(2) of the Tenancy Act. It was held that the trespasser would be deemed to have perfected his title to the land in his possession when no suit is filed within three years after the date of vesting. In that case, reliance was placed on a Division Bench pronouncement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hanuman Rai V. Deputy Director of Consolidation [1973 All. L.J. 612J.ln this case, in paragraph no. 18 of the judgment, a reference to a Division bench judgment in the case of Ram Surat Koeri V. Ram Lal [1954, A.L.J. 699J, was made, wherein the Allahabad High Court held "that even if for certain reasons a suit for ejectment of a trespasser could not be filed under Sec. 180 of U.P. Tenancy Act in the Revenue Court and had to be filed in the Civil Court, the period of limitation to file such a suit even in the Civil Court would be the same as prescribed in Sec. 180 and if that period of limitation has been allowed to expire the person in possession would become a hereditary tenant under Sec. 180(2) and the Civil Court cannot eject him as a trespasser." 17. It was also contended by the learned Senior Advocate Sri Alok Singh for the contesting respondents Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithilesh Tyagi that since they were not evicted under Section 180 of the said Act within the time prescribed, therefore, they were in adverse possession and they had become hereditary tenant under Section 180(2) of the UP. Tenancy Act and on the date of enforcement of U.P.ZA and L.R. Act on 1-7-1969, i.e. 1377 Fasli, they became Sirdar under Section 131. On 8-6-1973 when the Ceiling Act came into force, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 aforesaid became tenure holder under Section 131, i.e. Sirdar over the land and land of such tenure holder cannot be clubbed with the land of original tenure holder, hence the findings of the Prescribed Authority as well as the appellate court need not any interference in view of the provisions of law. 18. By the Government Notification No. 226/1 A-2-1 (2)-69, dated June 30, 1969 the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 with certain modification and deletion of certain provision has been made applicable to the areas mentioned in the notification. In place of Section 131 of the said Act, the following were substituted :- "131. Every persons belonging to any of the following classes shall be called as Sirdar and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Sirdars or under this Act; namely :(a) Every person who, on the date immediately preceding the appointed day held land as(i) An occupancy tenant, (ii) A hereditary tenant, not being a tenant referred to in clause (a) of Section 130, (Hi) a grantee at favour able rate or rent, (iv) A lessee holding a lease under the provisions of the Government Grants Act, 1895 and having rights of a hereditary tenant under the terms of the lease, but not possessing the right to transfer the holding by sale, (b) Every person, who is admitted as Sirdar of vacant land under the provisions of this Act, (c) A tenant in any of the 42 Buxari villages specified in the annexure, appended hereto, who was recorded in Class X(1) in the Khatauni of the previous agricultural year and (d) Every person who in any other manner, acquired the rights of a Sirdar under or in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " 19. " 19. Now, it has to be seen as to what was the limitation to evict the trespasser in possession before the date of vesting under the Tenancy Act as well as under the U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act after date of vesting. If no suit was filed against the trespasser in possession before and after the date of vesting, what would be the effect of non-filing the suit within the prescribed limitation under these Acts. 20. Under the Z.A. & L.R. Act, limitation for filing the suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules, Appendix III, Serial No.30, clauses (i) and (iii) provide the limitation in case the suit to be filed after the date of vesting for ejectment of a person taking or retaining possession of land unlawfully. Clause (i) of the Rules prescribes a period of three years commencing from the date of vesting where the person was in possession of land on the date of vesting and the period of limitation for ejectment specified in U.P. Tenancy Act had not expired. Clause (iii) thereof prescribes a period of six years commencing from July 1 following the date of occupation and governs case where the land taken possession of the holding of Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami. 21. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of vesting in entry 30 of Appendix III the limitation was two years for filing the suit for ejectment against the trespasser in possession of the land. The period of limitation of two years for suits mentioned in clause (i) of entry of Appendix III changed to three years by a Notification of the State Government on April 9, 1955. By this amendment, Governor made amendments in existing Rules framed under the U.P.ZA & L.R. Act. Paragraph 32 of the Notification deals with the amendments in Appendix III clause (6) as follows :"6. For the existing entries in column 4 against serial no. 30 of following shall be substituted against items (i), (ii) and (iii) of column 3, three years." 22. Thus, the period of limitation which was two years for all the three clauses changed to three years on 9th April, 1955. 23. The controversy whether the amended Rules can be applied retrospectively came before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hanumant Rai Vs. Thus, the period of limitation which was two years for all the three clauses changed to three years on 9th April, 1955. 23. The controversy whether the amended Rules can be applied retrospectively came before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Hanumant Rai Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others [1973, AII.L.J., Page 612] referred to above, wherein it was held by the Division Bench that the change in period of limitation would apply prospectively and not retrospectively. 24. Now, the second aspect of the case whether the period of limitation prescribed in U.P. Tenancy Act has expired before the date of vesting. This controversy has been decided by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of "Mohd. Yaseen V. Amarnath and others" [1974, RD. Page 239]. Paragraph no. 5 of the judgment reads as under : "5. Where the period of limitation prescribed in the U.P. Tenancy Act has expired before the date of vesting, the trespasser acquires a right and the tenant loses his tenancy rights. For such a case it is not necessary to lay down a fresh period of limitation as one party acquires the right and the other is deprived of his right. There is no question of re-determination of the rights of the parties. It is only where the possession is not for a period to mature the rights that a fresh limitation has to be provided. Where the period of limitation has not expired, the tenant retains his rights and the trespasser continues to be a trespasser. The tenant under the U.P.Z.A and L.R Act became a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami. Consequently, if in such cases clause (iii) is applicable, clause (i) shall become redundant. The redundancy is not to be assumed. In fact, an attempt has to be made to harmonize the provisions so that all the parts of the provisions may be fully applicable. On the application of this Rule, it must be held, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge also, that clause (i) applies to a trespasser in possession from before the date of vesting, where the trespasser has not acquired any right in the land, while the clause (iii) applies to cases where the trespass is after the date of vesting. The prescribed period of limitation for a suit under Section 209 for the ejectment of Amar Nath was thus three years commencing from the date of vesting (July 1, 1961). The suit was instituted long after the expiry of three years' period. The suit being barred by limitation was liable to dismissal." 25. In that case, the date of vesting was July 1, 1961 and suit was dismissed being barred by limitation. 26. In case at hand, it is not disputed that the U.P. Act NO.1 of 1951 came into force in district Nainital on 1-7-1969. The date of vesting i.e. 1-7-1969 corresponds to 1377 Fasli. Thus, on the basis of entry of adverse possession, the learned trial court held that the respondents aforesaid have been in possession for about 10-11 years before the ZA and L. R Act came into force in district Nainital and after the date of vesting they continued to be in possession and no suit was filed against them for eviction by the original tenure holder Mumtaz Jahan Haider and others under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939, within two years till the date of vesting, i.e. 1-7-1969 and furthermore, no suit was filed under Section 209 of the Z.A. and L. R Act before the date when the Ceiling Act came into force on 8-6-1973. 27. The learned Brief Holder for the State vehemently argued that the learned I Additional District Judge committed manifest error of law on the face of record in holding that the opposite parties nos. 1 and 2 perfected their title before 8•6-1973 and as such the holding ought to have been declared surplus in the name of respondent no. 4 Yakoob Ali original tenure holder. It was further contended that the learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse possession of title in respect of the land which was in the name of Sri Yakoob Ali Khan on and before 8-6-1973. 28. Since the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court after considering the evidence adduced by the respondents no. It was further contended that the learned Additional District Judge has no jurisdiction to decide the question of adverse possession of title in respect of the land which was in the name of Sri Yakoob Ali Khan on and before 8-6-1973. 28. Since the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court after considering the evidence adduced by the respondents no. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi came to the conclusion that they were recorded in Class 20 during the Settlement Operations and they also filed extract of Settlement 1366 Fasli, Extract of Khasara of 1374 Fasli, 1366 Fasli and 1376 to 1392 Fasli, extract of Khasara for 1373 Fasli to 1385 Fasli and both the courts below came to the conclusion that both Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi had been in adverse possession over plot nos. 2 and 3 measuring 20.13 Bigha and 413 Bigha situate in village Chanchar Tehsil Kichha, district Udham Singh Nagar. It is well settled that while exercising writ jurisdiction, the Court cannot sit as a court of appeal and cannot re-appreciate the evidence and only the legality or perversity of the judgment has to be seen. 29. It is clear from the material on record that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi are in possession of the disputed land prior to 1374 Fasli and they continued in possession of the said land till the date of vesting i.e. 1-7-1969 when the UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into force in the District Nainital i.e. w.eJ. 1377 Fasli. As such Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi had perfected their title on the appointed day i.e. 1-7-1969 under section 131 of U.P. ZA and L.R. Act and became Sirdar in view of amendment made in U.PZA and L.R. Act and subsequently by operation of law they became Bhumidhar with transferable rights. 30. Section 131 (a)(ii) of the ZA & L.R. Act which came into force in the area on 17 -1969 makes it clear that a hereditary tenant shall be called as Sirdar and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Sirdar under the Act. The respondent nos. 30. Section 131 (a)(ii) of the ZA & L.R. Act which came into force in the area on 17 -1969 makes it clear that a hereditary tenant shall be called as Sirdar and shall have all the rights and be subject to all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon Sirdar under the Act. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have filed documentary evidence referred to above which shows that they in possession of the disputed land since before 1374 Fasli and they continued in possession of the said land till the date of vesting i.e. 1-7-1969 which corresponds to 1377 Fasli. It establishes that no suit was filed under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act within a period of two years prior to the date of vesting. Thus, they became hereditary tenants under Section 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 and on 1-7-1969, they became Sirdar under Section 131 of the ZA & L.R. Act. 31. In the present case at hand, the respondents no. 1 and 2 had become the Sirdar under Section 131 of the ZA & L.R. Act being hereditary tenants. The suit could not be filed against such type of tenure holder who had perfected their right prior to enforcement of the Z.A. and L.R. Act under Section 209 thereof. It is not di3puted that no suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act or Section 209 of the ZA & L.R. Act was filed against the respondent nos. 1 and 2 till the enforcement of Ceiling Act. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly held that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had perfected their title over the land in dispute. 32. Now coming to the case of Yakub Ali Khan, Ceiling Appeal No. 23 of 1983 was filed by him against Hem Chandra Tyagi, $mt. Mithlesh Tyagi, Sri C. Shivdasani and State of U.P. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the contention of the appellant Yakub Ali Khan on the ground that he was recorded as tenure holder in 1381 Fasli as a result of Revenue Suit No. 22/1 of 1972. Admittedly, in that suit Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi were not a party. The learned Add!. Admittedly, in that suit Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi were not a party. The learned Add!. District Judge held that Yakub Ali Khan deemed to have stepped into the shoes of Mumtaz Jahan, but still the suit land cannot be clubbed in the land of Yakub Ali and admittedly the respondents Hem Chandra arid Mithlesh were in possession since 1958-59, which corresponds to 1366 Fasli. 33. No suit was filed by Yakub Ali or the original tenure holder Mumtaz Jahan Haider before or after the date of vesting and thus, they have perfected their rights before the Ceiling Act came into force. It is not disputed that Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi were not a party in the ceiling proceedings and they were allowed to be impleaded by the Allahabad High Court, hence the entry of possession of Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi in the revenue records persistently and continuously since 1366 Fasli, when the land settlement operation took place in the area cannot be ignored, The entry of Yakub Ali Khan appears to have been made subsequent upon the decision of appeal on 27-2-1972 by the learned Commissioner arising out of the Suit No. 22/1 of 1972 filed by Smt. Mumtaz Jahan Haider against Yakub Khan in the court of Assistant Collector. It was not disputed that Second Appeal is pending before the Board of Revenue, therefore, the judgment had not become final at the time of decision in Ceiling Proceedings. In any case, the entry will not affect the status of Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi The grounds raised by the State as well as Yakub Ali Khan are misconceived. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and illegality. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and are liable to be dismissed. 34. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed and the order impugned passed by the (sic) 22-10-1984 and 7-1-1983, Le.1 Additional District Judge, Nainital and the Prescribed Authority concerned respectively are upheld. 35. However, the Prescribed Authority may proceed as per his order dated 7-1-1983 against the respondent Nos. 34. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed and the order impugned passed by the (sic) 22-10-1984 and 7-1-1983, Le.1 Additional District Judge, Nainital and the Prescribed Authority concerned respectively are upheld. 35. However, the Prescribed Authority may proceed as per his order dated 7-1-1983 against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Tyagi and Mithlesh Tyagi, if they hold the land in excess of the prescribed ceiling limit as per provision of the Ceiling Act and the Prescribed Authority shall decide the objection of C. Shivdashani on merit as has been directed by the learned Additional District Judge. 36. The interim orders dated 29-3-1985 and 10-3-1985 passed by the Allahabad High Court are hereby vacated. * * *