JUDGMENT G.S. Sail, M. - We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Board passed orders in second appeal on June 18, 1966. A review application was filed and admitted by the Board on August 16, 1966. After the review application was admitted, consolidation operations commenced in the village. Thereupon an application was moved before the Board on November 23, 1967 that the appeal alongwith the suit may be abated. The Board took the view that in the matter of review, abatement will not apply. Against this order of the Board a writ petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court who also took the view that abatement will not apply to review proceedings. A special appeal was also filed which was rejected summarily. Thereafter on February 14, 1977, an application was moved before the Board that the orders of the Board may be reviewed in the light of the subsequent Division Bench ruling of the High Court reported in 1974 A.L.J. 518 according to which the proceedings will abate upon the enforcement of the consolidation operations provided the review petition has been admitted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this case is binding authority on the subject and accordingly on the subject and accordingly the Board should review its earlier decision. He referred to A.I.R. 1969 Kerala page 186 and submitted that because the law had been changed it would be a good ground for moving the review petition. In this case it has been observed that in case the law is changed, it will have retrospective effect and will be binding. He also referred to A.I.R. 1971 page 2365 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court have taken a view that the lower court should apply a decision contained in a subsequent judicial pronouncement and the earlier judgment will not operate as res judicata. He submitted that the review petition itself had not been finally decided and the earlier orders of the Board were only to the effect that he review is not liable to be abated under section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. He submitted that the review petition itself had not been finally decided and the earlier orders of the Board were only to the effect that he review is not liable to be abated under section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party, in reply, stated that he Supreme Court ruling referred to by the petitioner pertains to charges in the statute and, therefore, it will not apply in this case. He submitted that jurisdiction of public authorities is created and conferred by the statute and in such cases the matter could be agitated again. The point involved in this case is whether the appeal will abate under Section 5 of the C.H. Act and it is a question of law. He referred to A.I.R 1944 Oudh page 198 and submitted that the review application is not maintainable as so no error apparent on the fact of the record has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. 5. We have considered the arguments and gone through the record of the case. The main argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that as the Hon'ble High Court has already finally decided the rights in this particular case, both in respect of the question of abatement under of abatement under the Consolidation of Holdings Act and merits of the dispute between the parties, it is not open to the Board of Revenue to reopen any point already decided by the Hon'ble High Court. Both the application for abatement and the review application must be dismissed. 6. We are of the clear opinion that the view of the opposite party must be upheld. Any other view would imply that the Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to over-rule specific decision of the Hon'ble High Court in a particular case. This implication cannot be entertained by us even for a moment. 7. Both the application for abatement and the review petition are, accordingly, dismissed on the above reasoning. It may, however, be observed that the applicant will still be at liberty to approach the Hon'ble High Court for such relief that he may deem himself to be entitled.