SATISH CHANDRA, C. J. :- The question of law for the decision of which a Division Bench has referred this case to a Full Bench is whether proceedings under, the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) are maintainable and can continue during the pendency of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act).

2. The notification under Section 4(2) of the Consolidation Act in respect of the plots in dispute was published on 17th August, 1975. Subsequently on 24th April, 1976, the Prescribed Authority issued a notice under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner filed an objection, that in view of the pendency of proceedings under the Consolidation Act the proceedings under the Ceiling Act could not validly be initiated. The Prescribed Authority rejected this contention, and passed an order declaring S.20 acres in terms of irrigated area as the surplus land of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was however, dismissed as barred by time.

4. The petitioner came up to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court allowed the peti