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 petitioner to add a relief that the notice under Section 10(2) being without jurisdiction be quashed. Being of the opinion that the question raised in this case was of general importance, the matter was referred to a Full Bench.

5. Under the Consolidation Act title of interested persons is determined in respect of the area for which a notification has been issued under Section 4(2) of that Act. Thereafter the holding of each tenure-holder is consolidated into one or more compact areas called chaks. When these proceedings are over, a notification under Section 52 is issued closing the consolidation operations.

6. Section 5(2)(a) of the Consolidation Act provides for abatement of proceedings pending on the date when the notification under Section 4(2) is published. Such proceedings are for correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest. In addition, proceedings for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Consolidation Act also abate.

7. Section 49 of the Consolidation Act, on the other hand, debarred civil or revenue courts from entertaining any suit or proceeding with respect to right in such land. It also provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force declaration and adjudication of rights in respect of such land shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidation Act. In other words, Section 5 covered pending proceedings, while Section 49 dealt with proceedings contemplated or launched after the commencement of consolidation operations.

8. A Full Bench of this Court (Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate v. State of U.P. (AIR 1971 All 134) : (1970 All LJ 1319)) took the view that the Consolidation and the Ceiling Acts operate in different fields, Authorities under the Ceiling Act declare surplus land of a tenure-holder for which no provision has been made in the Consolidation Act. Section 5 of the Consolidation Act is hence not attracted to proceedings under the Ceiling Act and they will not abate.

9. This case went up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court (Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate v. State of U.P. (AIR 1974 SC 1920) : (1975 All LJ 131)) overruled the view taken by the Full Bench. It held that proceedings under the Ceiling Act were proceedings for declaration or adjudication of rights in land, and so they would abate under Section 5 of the Consolidation Act. They can be resumed on the completion of consolidation operations by the issuance of a notification under Section 52 of the Consolidation Act.

9A. The State Legislature intervened, and by the U.P. Laws Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974, added the following explanation to Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act