C.S.P. SINGH, J. :- This revision has come up before us on a reference made by a learned single Judge. The facts relating to the revision are these. Ratan Lal sold certain Bhumidhari plots of land to Shri Ram, and Shri Ram subsequently executed an agreement to recovery the property within a period of two years. Shri Ram did not recovery the property and as a result, Ratan Lal filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed Ratan Lal then transferred his right to one Dhani Ram, and Dhani Ram made an application under Order XXI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 19-12-1963 for execution of the decree as an assignee of the decree-holder. In spite of transferring his rights to Dhani Ram, Ratan Lal also moved an application for execution of the decree. The execution proceedings ended in a compromise on 26-5-1964 and Ratan Lal received an amount of Rs. 7,000 and the decree was struck off. Shri Ram, the first vendeo from Ratan Lal objected to the maintainability of the application filed by Dhani Ram. The objections filed by Shri Ram were upheld and the execution application of Dhani Ram was dismissed on 9-10-1964. Dhttnl Esm preferred an appeal against this order. During the pendency of this appeal, a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued and an objection was raised by the respondents to the effect that the appeal had abated on account of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appellate court relying on the decision in the case of Chattan Singh v. Hira Singh, (1969 All LJ 189) held that the appeal did not abate. Shri Ham thereafter filed a revision in this Court.

2. The learned Single Judge after referring to Section 5(2)(a) and Section 9(1)(A)(i) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, tentatively took the view that it may be possible to hold, that a right to get a sale deed executed in respect of land is a right in relation to the land as such it may be possible to file an objection before the consolidation authorities in respect of such a right and in such an eventuality the same matter would be concurrently answered in two forms with the possibility of conflicting decisions. He was of the view that this aspect of the matter had not been considered in Chattan Singh's case, 1969 All LJ 189 (supra), and this being so, he referred the case to a larger Bench. It is useful to extract Section 5(2)(a) and Section 9(1)(a)(i) of the Act at this stage for the decision turns on the interpretation to be put on these two sections :-

"(5)(2) Effect of notification under Section 4(2)(1).

(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under Sub-Section (2) of Section 4. the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely -

(a) every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in the area. or for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision shall, on an order passed in this behalf by the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated :

Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard :

Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-Section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part, as the case may be, shall stand vacated."

"9. Issue of extracts from records and statements, publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections.

(1) Upon the preparation of the records of the statements mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A, the Assistant Cons