JUDGMENT

Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This special appeal directed against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing the Appellant's petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution has its roots in proceedings under the UP Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act.

2. The Appellant did not file any objection u/s 9 of the said Act. Subsequent to the receipt of notice u/s 10 of the Act the Appellant preferred an objection on 3-3-1962. The village was notified under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act on 16-3-1963. The Appellant objected to the notice issued u/s 10 on the ground that he did not actually own the area shown in the notice as his holding. It appears that the proceedings under the Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act dragged on for some time because of the two remands made by the appellate authority one after the other. The decision of the prescribed authority after the second remand was given on 4-7-1964. Aggrieved by this decision the Appellant went in appeal as provided under the said Act. Before the appellate authority the Appellant wanted to file the decisions of the consolidation authorities dated 27-12-1963, 28-12-1963, 2-1-1964 and 8-1-1964 which had the effect of reducing the area of the holding of the Appellant from what was indicated in the notice issued u/s 10 or held to be the area of his holding by the prescribed authority by its decision dated 4-7-1964. The appellate authority refused to receive these documents at that stage. The reason given by the appellate authority in its own words for that refusal is:

If the papers came into existence after repeated decisions of the prescribed authority and the appellate court, they could not be taken into account, if they were not filed at the earliest opportunity.

After refusing to accept those decisions of the consolidation authorities, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. It is in these circumstances that the Appellant preferred his petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution giving rise to this special appeal.

3. As appears from a perusal of the judgment under appeal, two points were urged before the learned single Judge. Before us also same two points have been urged on behalf of the Appellant. The first point urged is that in view of the notification issued u/s 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act on 16-3-1963, the proceedings under the Ceiling Act had to be stayed as required by Section 5 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. The relevant portion of Section 5 as it then stood provided:

Upon the publication of the notification u/s 4 in the official Gazette, the consequences, as hereinafter set forth, shall....ensue in the area to which the declaration relates, namely--

(a) ...

(b)(i) all proceedings for correction of records and all suits for declaration of rights and interests over land, or for possession of land, or for partition, pending before any authority or court, whether of first instance, appeal, or reference, or revision, shall stand stayed....;

(ii) the findings of consolidation authorities in proceedings under this Act in respect of such rights or interests in the land shall be accepted by the authority or court before whom the proceeding or suit was pending which may, on communication thereof by the parties concerned, proceed with the proceeding or suit, as the case may be;

(c) ...

The learned single Judge did not accept the Appellant's contention that as a result of the notification issued u/s 4 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act the proceedings under the Ceiling Act should have been staged for the reason which may be stated in his own words:

There is nothing in record to suggest that any question of the right of the Petitioner in any of the lands held by him in his own right on 3-1-1961 was raised. The mere fact that certain orders were passed does not mean that the persons in whose favour those orders were passed possessed those rights on 3-1-1961.

We are unable to appreciate this reasoning. Once in an objection u/s 10 the