JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree of Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, dated May 17, 1971 in Appeal No. 773 of 1970 against the order dated January 24, 1970 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue), district Faizabad, in execution proceedings relating to village Mirzapur Masena, pargana Bidhar, district Faizabad. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly stated here. The appellant, Srimati Urehi had obtained a decree for ejectment against respondent No. 1 Basudeo Sing, on December 30, 1966. On May 21, 1969, the Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal against this decree. On August 12, 1969 she moved an application before the trial court for execution of the decree. This application was allowed by the trial court on the spot. On September 7, 1969, the execution of the decree was done on the spot. On September 16, 1969, Basudeo Singh moved an application for cancellation of the execution proceedings on the ground that consolidation operations had started in the village on August 16, 1969. The trial court by its order dated January 24, 1970 rejected the application of Basudeo Singh. Basudeo Singh went up in appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated May 17, 1971 has allowed the appeal and cancelled the execution proceedings. Srimati Urehi has now come up in second appeal. 4. The trial court by its order dated January 24, 1970 rejected the application of Basudeo Singh. Basudeo Singh went up in appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated May 17, 1971 has allowed the appeal and cancelled the execution proceedings. Srimati Urehi has now come up in second appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that proceedings for execution of decree can neither be stayed nor abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and the lower appellant court has erred in law in holding otherwise, that the decree-holder appellant's suit for ejectment having been decreed by the trial court, the lower appellate court, and the decree having been confirmed by the Board of Revenue, she was entitled to get the possession of the land in execution of the decree, and the lower appellate court has erred in law in cancelling the execution proceedings, that the execution proceedings are not proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interests of parties within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and that the rights and interests in respect of the land having already been adjudicated and finally determined by the Board of Revenue, the execution proceedings had to be carried out in accordance with the judgment and decree of the Board of Revenue. 5. Sub-section(2) of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act reads as follows: "5(2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-section (2) of Section 4 the following further consequences shall ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) Every proceeding for the correction of records and every suit and proceeding in respect of declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under this Act, pending before any court or authority whether of the first instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall, on an order being passed in that behalf of the court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated: Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving to the parties notice by post or in any other manner and after giving them an opportunity of being heard. Provided further that on the issue of a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 6 in respect of the said area or part thereof, every such order in relation to the land lying in such area or part as the case may be shall stand vacated; (b) Such abatement shall be without prejudice to the rights of the persons affected to agitate the right or interest in dispute in the said suits or proceedings before the appropriate consolidation authorities of this Act and the rules made thereunder." 6. A perusal of the above section makes it clear that only suits or proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interests in the land lying in the area taken up for consolidation are abated. Thereafter the adjudication of the rights and interest is done by the consolidation authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. Where, however, such adjudication of rights has already been concluded and finally determined by the Board of Revenue, clearly Section 5(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act does not come into play. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited a number of decisions on this point. In 1964 R.D. 310, it has been held that an execution proceeding is a proceeding which does not originate in itself but follows a decree passed in a suit and consequently is different from a suit. There is nothing in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act to show that the word 'suit' in Section 5 has been used so as to include execution proceedings. In 1972 R.D. 389, it has been held that a plain reading of Section 5(2)(a) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act clearly indicates that only proceedings for correction of records and regular suits are to abate with the commencement of consolidation operations. The Act does not contemplate the staying of execution proceedings because such proceedings do not originate in themselves but follow as a consequence from a decree passed in a suit. In 1974 R.D. 107, it has been held that Section 5(2)(a) has no impact on writ proceedings or special appeals arising out of them in which judgment or orders passed in suit or proceeding relating to declaration of rights inland covered by notification under Section 4 of the said Act are in challenge. In 1974 R.D. 107, it has been held that Section 5(2)(a) has no impact on writ proceedings or special appeals arising out of them in which judgment or orders passed in suit or proceeding relating to declaration of rights inland covered by notification under Section 4 of the said Act are in challenge. In 1975 R.D. 86, it has been held that execution of decree for specific performance does not fall within the expression 'or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Act' occurring in Section 5(2)(a). 8. The above rulings make the position quite clear and leave no scope for doubt that execution proceedings could not be abated under Section 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The learned Additional Commissioner has erred in law in cancelling the execution proceedings. The correct position is that the decree-holder is entitled to the execution of the decree passed in her favour by the Board of Revenue. 9. The result is that I hereby allow the appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore the order of the trial court. If the Dakhal has been given to the appellant in execution of the decree, it will not be disturbed. If, on the other hand, the Dakhal has been taken back from her, it shall be restored to her.