IMPORTANT POINT
The right of appeal is a vested right which accrues to the litigant from the date the proceedings commenced and continues till the proceedings are finally decided. The deeming clause in Section 52(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act preserves the right of appeal even after the issuance of the notification under Section 52(1). The provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act apply to the applications, appeals, revisions, and other proceedings under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

C.M. Application Nos. IA/8/2023, IA/9/2023 and IA/10/2023 (Application(s) for Condonation of Delay, Setting Aside Abatement and Substitution)

Heard.

2. Considering the issue involved in the present petition as also the undisputed facts that private respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were the Members of Chakbandi, this Court finds no force in the application(s), under consideration, as such, the same are hereby rejected.

Order on Petition

3. Heard Mohhd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shadab Khan, Advocate as also Mr. Akbar Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State as also Sri Shiv Kumar, Advocate, who preferred the application for impleadment, to which, the objection has been filed before this Court and the same is taken on record.

4. By means of the present petition, petitioner has sought the following main relief:-

"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting the opp. party No.6 to proceed with appeal No. 1734/1067/2003 under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (Shyama Kumari and Others vs. Parag Memorial Educational Institution)."

5. The aforesaid main prayer has been sought on the following two grounds:-

"(i) Because the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was not challenged and had become final between the parties. The consolidation operation came to an end after the issue of notification Under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, on 9.6.2001. No appeal could therefore be legally filed or entertained as nothing was pending on the date of aforesaid notification.

(ii) Because opposite party no. 6 patently lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the appeal."

6. For seeking the prayer sought, based upon the above quoted grounds, Mr. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, placed reliance on the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 203 (Cons.) of 1995 (Kapil Dev vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others), 1996 (14) LCD 550, and the judgment passed in the case of Hari Ram vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamagarh & Ors. 1989 RD 281.

7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khan, based upon the judgments, referred above, submitted that after publication of notification under Section 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), the appellate authority namely Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Hardoi, was not empowered to entertain or decide the appeal preferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1953, as such, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

8. Opposing the present petition, learned counsels for the side opposite namely Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey as also Sri Shiv Kumar, based upon the judgment passed in the case of Siddh Narayan vs. The Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.; MANU/UP/1284/2007, submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, after taking note of earlier pronouncements on the issue including the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Ram vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamagarh & Ors.; 1989 RD 281, as also the judgment passed in the case of Nanhki vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and Ors. 1995 Part 1 Volume 13 LCD 1: 1994 RD 264, the basis of the judgment passed in the case of Kapil Dev (Supra), held that the appeal would be maintainable even after publication of notification under Section 52 of the Act of 1953. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the case of Siddh Narayan (Supra) are extracted hereinunder:-

"3. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal filed by Gaon Sabha after de-notification of consolidation operation under Section 52 of the Act was not at all maintainable and his preliminary objection has wrongly been overruled. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the decisions of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi