K.N. SETH, J. :- In consolidation proceedings Smt. Tulsa was allotted a chak in lieu of certain plots of which she was the recorded tenure-holder. While the consolidation operations were still in progress she died in 1962. On her death, the appellant made an application under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for mutation of his name in place of her name claiming to be her heir, being the daughter's son. Another application was filed by one Nathu Singh. The Gaon Samaj also entered the arena claiming that Smt. Tulsa had died without leaving any heir and her property had vested in the Gaon Samaj. The Consolidation Officer, by his order dated 13-5-1963, upheld the claim of the present appellant and rejected the claim put forward by the Gaon Samaj and Nathu Singh. The Gaon Samaj preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) by an order dated 28th November, 1963 holding that the property of Smt. Tulsa had vested in the Gaon Samaj. Against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), the appellant filed a revision on 12th December, 1963. Before the revision was filed, a notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued on 7th December, 1963. The revision was dismissed on the ground that after the notification under Section 52 of the Act, the revision could not be entertained. The order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was challenged in this Court by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge dismissed the petition and hence this appeal.

2. It is admitted that when the notification under Section 52 of the Act was issued, no revision had been filed challenging the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The question for consideration is whether the revision filed on December 12, 1963 was maintainable.

3. Sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the Act was added by Section 43 of the U. P. Amendment Act No. VIII of 1963 and reads :-

"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), any order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1) shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and the consolidation operations shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not been closed."

Under the aforesaid provision the consolidation authorities were bound to give effect to orders passed by Court of competent jurisdiction in cases or proceedings pending under the Act on the date of the issue of the notification under sub-section (1). It was contended that the proceedings initiated by the applications made by the rival claimants had not finally concluded by the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and were still pending when the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act was issued. The learned single Judge took the view that in order to attract the provisions of subsection (2), a proceeding must be actually pending on the date of the notification and it should not be in mere contemplation. In the present case the revisional proceeding was only in contemplation till it was filed on December 12, 1963, and it could not be accepted that on December 7, 1963 when the notification was issued, the revisional proceeding was pending.

4. A proceeding whether initiated through a suit or an application embraces within its ambit all the rights available to a party by way of appeals, second appeals or revisions. In Garikapati v. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540, S.R. Das, C. J., delivering the majority judgment laid down that the legal pursuit of a remedy, suit, appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic entity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding and that the right of appeal was not a mere matter of procedure but was