SATISH CHANDRA, CJ.

1. Finding a difference of opinion between the Single Judge decisions of this Court, a learned Single Judge has referred the following questions to a Division Bench:

(1) Whether the Full Bench decision in Ram Charan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1979 All 114 has by implication overruled the decision of the learned Single Judges in Ram Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1978 AWC 713 and Ghana Ram v. State 1977 AWC 415 on the question of the true scope of Section 38-B of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act?

(2) If the said Pull Bench decision has not by implication overruled the said Single Judge pronouncement, then is the scope of Section 38-B, on its true interpretation, qualified in the manner as held by the learned Judges in the said Single Judge decisions?

2. Section 38-B was enacted in the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 by U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976, with effect from October 10, 1975.

3. A Full Bench of this Court in Agricultural an I Industrial Syndicate v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1970 AWR 753 held that Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, providing for abatement of proceedings for declaration of rights and interest in law governed by the notification issued u/s 4(2) of that Act* and pending on the date of the publication of that notification, shall abate, was not applicable to proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. That case went up to the Supreme Court which overruled it--See The Agricultural and Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1920. The Supreme Court took the view that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act were proceedings for declaration or adjudication of rights in land and so they would abate u/s 5 of the Consolidation Act.

4. The State Legislature intervened, and by the U.P. Laws Amendment Act No. 34 of 1974 added an explanation to Section 5(2) of the Consolidation Act. The explanation provided that for purposes of Sub-section (2), a proceeding under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, shall not be deemed to be a proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land. In the result, ceiling proceedings were not liable to be abated.

5. A question arose whether the ceiling proceedings were barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation Act. This question was referred to a Full Bench. The Full Bench in Ram Charan Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1979 All 114 held that Section 5(2) and Section 49 are the two faces of the same coin. They are parts of the same scheme of the Consolidation Act. Proceedings under the Calling Act were outside the purview of Section 49 as they are of Section 5(2).

6. One of the arguments raised before that Full Bench was that the ceiling proceedings ought to be stayed on the principle of comity of courts. When the question of title is already engaging the attention of the consolidation authorities, adjudication of same rights under the Ceiling Act is likely to lead to conflicting orders, and so the latter proceedings under the Ceiling Act ought to be stayed. The Full Bench held that this argument is fallacious. I he Full Bench pointed out several provisions that have been introduced in the Ceiling Act by the Amending Act No. 19 of 1975 and Act No. 20 of 1976 Some of them were noticed in paragraphs 35 to 40. It was then held that these are overriding provisions which nullify declaration or adjudication of the rights in relation to the matters mentioned above, made in any other proceeding, including consolidation proceedings. There seems little point in staying ceiling proceedings because of the pendency of consolidation proceedings. It will only mean postponing the evil day.

7. The Full Bench then referred to Section 38-B of the Ceiling Act which was introduced by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1976 with effect from October 10, 1975. This section provided:

38-B. Bar against res judicata--No finding or decision befo