SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- The respondents 3 to 5 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner contested them. The objections were fixed for hearing on 11-12-1968. On that day the hearing was adjourned to 23-12-1968. They were allowed by the Consolidation Officer by an order of that date. Subsequently, on 4-1-1969 a notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was published. Thereafter, on January 15, 1969 the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order of 23-12-1968. He alleged that he was all along present on that day but he was told that the ease would be heard on some other date of which notice will be given to him later. Upon hearing this he went away and subsequently he learnt that the objections had been decided on that day. The restoration application was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer without giving any reasons. The petitioner then filed a revision. The Deputy Director dismissed the revision on the view that by the issuance of the notification under Section 52 prior to the restoration application the application was not competent. He relied on a Single Judge decision in Mohd. Saddiq v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. (1967 All WR (HC) 228). The revision was dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition. At the hearing of the writ petition the attention of the learned Single Judge was invited to another decision of this Court in Dilawar Singh v. Gram Samaj, 1972 All WR (HC) 557 : (AIR 1973 All 411). The learned Single Judge felt that there was divergence in the decisions and it was better that the matter be decided by a larger Bench. That is how this case has been placed before this Bench.

1-A. Section 52 of the Act provides :

"Close of Consolidation Operations - (1) As soon as may be after fresh maps and records have been prepared under sub-section (1) of Section 27, the State Government shall issue a notification in the official Gazette that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and village or villages forming part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations.

Provided that the issue of the notification under this section shall not affect the powers of the State Government to fix, distribute and recover the cost of operations under this Act.

(2) 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 oases 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."

2. The issuance of the Notification does not, however affect the orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Constitution of India or in cases or proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of notification under sub-section (1) and orders passed will have to be given effect to notwithstanding anything contained in the Notification. In Dilawar Singh's case, 1972 All WR (HC) 557 : (AIR 1973 All 411) the Division Bench observed that the term "proceedings" in Section 52 (2) has been used in the comprehensive sense of proceedings commencing from the one which is initiated before the Consolidation Officer and including that taken in the appeal Court. It was held that an appeal does not initiate a fresh proceeding. On the institution of the appeal the proceedings, which had become dormant on the decision of the trial Court revive and remain pending, the only difference being that they are now pending in a different Court, namely, the Court of appeal. It was also held that the notification under Section 52 (1) does not have the effect of destroying vested rights of the litigants. For instance, if a litigant has a right of appeal against a particular orde