JAGDISH SAHAI, A. C. J. : The Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Limited Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to us the petitioner) holds about 2,000 acres of land. Under the provisions of the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the prescribed Authority after hearing the petitioner, carved out some land as "surplus land" from its holding. Dissatisfied with the order of the prescribed Authority, the petitioner appealed to the District Judge, Saharanpur under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, who relying upon Kali Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1964 All LJ 896 dismissed it on January 31, 1964.

2. The petitioner then filed writ petition No. 1701 of 1964 in this Court which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, who referred the case to a Division Bench. On a reference made by the Division Bench the matter has come before us.

3. While the case was still pending before the learned Single Judge, on 18-9-1967 the petitioner made an amendment application to the writ petition for the incorporation in it of the plea that the village in which the holding is situate having come under consolidation operations by virtue of the notification dated 13-3-1959, the proceedings under the Act had to be stayed under Section 5 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings

Act hereinafter referred to as the Consolidation Act. This amendment was allowed.

4. Two questions were canvassed before the learned Single Judge. The first one related to the correctness or otherwise of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Raja Yuveraj Datt Singh v. Prescribed Authority, 1968 All LJ 292 : (AIR 1968 All 305) (FB) by which the earlier decision in 1964 All LJ 896 was overruled. The other one was whether the proceedings under the Act would have to be abated under the provisions of Section 5 of the Consolidation Act.

5. On the first question it has been admitted at the Bar that the decision recorded by the Full Bench in 1968 All LJ 292 : (AIR 1968 All 305) (FB) (supra) is correct and does not require reconsideration. We are in agreement with that decision.

6. Coming to the second question, it may be pointed out that the Act and the Consolidation Act are two special statutes passed by the U. P. Legislature. The long title of the Act provides for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh and certain other matters connected therewith. The preamble of the Act reads :-

"Whereas it is necessary in the interest of the community to ensure increased agricultural production and to provide land for landless agricultural labourers and for other public purposes as best to subserve the common good;

And whereas a more equitable distribution of land is essential;

And, wherefore it is expedient to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the aforementioned purposes;" The short title of the Act is "The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act." This Act was passed in 1960 and was enforced some time in January 1961.

7. The Consolidation Act was passed in 1953 and was enforced some time in 1954. The long title of the Consolidation Act is "an Act to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture." The preamble is "whereas it is expedient to provide for the consolidation of agricultural holdings in Uttar Pradesh for the development of agriculture." The short title is "the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953."

8. It is well settled that the long title, the short title and the preamble provide a key to the interpretation of a statute. The provisions of the two Acts also reveal that the objects of the two statutes under consideration are very different from each other. Whereas the purpose of the Act is to carve out "surplus land" from the holding of a tenure-holder so that it could be distributed to the landless labourers or be utilised for public purpose; the sole function of the Consolidation Act