JUDGMENT R.S. Verma and Mr. I.B. Singh, Members. - The following question has been referred to this Bench:- "Whether the scope of Sec. 73 of Act VIII of 1977 includes abatement of proceedings decided by the Courts of original jurisdiction and Courts of first appeal and revision in cases arising out of Secs. 134 and 135 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act". 2. The context, in which this question arise in Revision No. 4 of 1971-72 Bareilly before Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Member, is as follows: "One Jiwan Ram filed a case on 7-3-1969 in the Court of Tahsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Class Chail, Allahabad for the grant of Bhumidhar Sanad in his favour to the extent of his half share in khata No. 40 of village Durgapur, consequent upon his depositing ten times of land revenue, The prayer was grated on 5.2.1970 by Sri Jai Pal Singh Tahsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Class, Bareilly, An appeal preferred against this order, ended in dismissal on 5-10-1971 by Shri O.P. Sharma, learned additional Commissioner, Bareilly. Revision was filed by Tota Ram against this order of the learned Commissioner. 3. The revision came for hearing on 27-1-1978 before Shri A.K. Sharma a learned Judicial Member of this Board. It was argued before him that in view of Sec. 73 of Act VIII of 1977 (Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment Act 1970) the whole proceedings right from the trial court upto the revisional Court, shall abate. Three decisions of this Board were referred before the Single Judicial Member Shri A.A. Sharma. These decisions are (1) Shiva Narin v. Shankar, Revision No. 109 of 1975-76 Allahabad decided on 18-2-1977 by Sri M.P. Pandey Ld. Judicial Member (2) Inder Deo v. Sheo Dhari Revision No. 100/75-76, Banda decided on 16-5-1977 by Shri H.N. Agrawal, learned Judicial Member; and (3) Gayadin v. Gurdin and others Second appeal No. 119 of 1971-72, Sitapur decided on 19-4-1977 by Shri H.N. Agrawal, learned Judicial Member. While passing the order of abatement in the aforesaid cases the learned Judicial Members has not given any reasoning, except quoting the section under which the abatement order was passed. 4. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Member, who was hearing the present Revision petition, disagreed with the view of the other learned Judicial Member referred to above in the preceding para. 4. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Member, who was hearing the present Revision petition, disagreed with the view of the other learned Judicial Member referred to above in the preceding para. Sri A.K. Sharma's view is that according to plain reading of Sec. 73 of Act VIII of 1977 only proceedings immediately pending before 28-1-1977 shall abate, and no other proceeding. He was also of the view that the proceedings of the Courts below would not be affected because had that been the intention of the amending Act of 1977 it would have been explicitly mentioned that the suit would also abate, as had been specifically provided in section 5 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 50. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Member, formulated a question and referred it to Bench. 5. By his order dated 12-6-1977, Shri M.C. Sharma, the Hon'ble Chairman of this board constituted a Bench consisting of Judicial Members Sri H.N. Agarwal and Sri. I.B. Singh. Argument was heard by this Bench on 12-9-1979, and 14-9-1979 was fixed for judgement. As the case pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of Sri H.N. Agarwal learned Judicial Member, he was to render Judgement, as the practice and precedent of this Board. Sri H.N. Agarwal Judicial Member, could not prepare the Judgement in time. After seven and a half months of the hearing of argument Shri. H.N. Agarwal Judicial Member prepared a judgement on 6-5-1980 by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue, U.P. was valid or not. Sri. I.B. Singh Judicial Member (one of us) did not subscribe to this view, and he on 2-6-1980, by a separate judgement, negatived the contention of Sri. H.N. Agrawal Judicial Member. As Sri. H.N. Agarwal Judicial Member had been transferred in the meanwhile, new Bench consisting of Judicial Member Sri Surendra Mohan and Sri. I.B. Singh was constituted by the Chairman vide his order dated 16-6-1980. Before this case came upto the Bench for hearing Sri Surendra Mohan, Judicial Member was transferred. Thereafter a new Bench, consisting of both of us (I.B. Singh and R.S. Verama) was constituted. 6. Sri Bhawani Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite Party Jeewan, has again raised the point of jurisdiction and the validity of the constitution of the Bench. Before this case came upto the Bench for hearing Sri Surendra Mohan, Judicial Member was transferred. Thereafter a new Bench, consisting of both of us (I.B. Singh and R.S. Verama) was constituted. 6. Sri Bhawani Prasad, learned counsel for the opposite Party Jeewan, has again raised the point of jurisdiction and the validity of the constitution of the Bench. A full Bench of this Board in Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha, 1976 R.D. 53 (F.B.), had dealt with this matter in detail, and that decision is binding on this Bench. However, we will state the points raised and our brief comments on these points. First contention is that case No. 3048 of 1973 (Agra) Beni Prasad v. Board of Revenue, has been fixed for hearing on 30-10-1980 in the Hon'ble High Court and point has been raised in that writ petition about the power of Chairman of the Board of Revenue to constitute Benches, and therefore this Bench has no jurisdiction to hear this case. There is no substance in this contention. The date mentioned above has passed. No decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad on this point has been brought to our notice and the Hon'ble High Court has not passed any stay order. Sec. 10 C.P.C. does not apply at all, because parties are not the same in the two proceedings. Second contention is that the former Bench Consisting of Sri H.N. Agarwal and Sri I.B. Singh gave dissenting judgements on the point of validity of the Chairman Senior Most Member constituting the Bench and hence this matter should have been referred to a larger Bench. This matter has already been settled by Sri M.C. Sharma, Hon'ble Chairman Senior Most Member of this Board by his order dated 16-6-1980. Moreover if a larger Bench has to be constituted at all, it will have to be constituted by the Chairman Senior most member himself, and that constitution of the Bench will again be invalid according to the reasoning of Sri Bhawani Prasad, Learned Advocate for the O.P. If the Chairman Senior most member of the Board of Revenue has no power to constitute a Division Bench, he will not have power to constitute a larger Bench also. As far as this point is concerned it has been finally settled by 1976 R.D. 53 Full Bench (supra). As far as this point is concerned it has been finally settled by 1976 R.D. 53 Full Bench (supra). Third contention is that one of us (Sri I.B. Singh) has already expressed his opinion on this point vide his order dated 2-6-1980, and hence it is not proper for him to sit on this Bench. No rule has been cited on this point. We are clear in our minds that there is no impropriety in this. The contentions of Sri Bhawani Prasad, learned Advocate for O.P. have been stated to be rejected. 7. Now we are led to the question referred to us. That question has been mentioned at the beginning of this judgement. We are called upon to interpret Sec. 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977. Sec. 73 of the said Act is as follows:- Section 73-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force all proceedings for acquisition of bhumidhari right under Secs. 134 and 135 of the Uttar pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as they stood immediately before January 28, 1977, and all proceedings arising therefrom, pending on such date before any Court or authority shall abate. (2) Where any proceeding has been abated under Sub-section (1) the amount deposited for the acquisition of such rights shall be refunded to the person depositing the same or to his legal representatives, as the case may be." 8. The wordings of this section and the intention of the legislature is very clear. This section makes provisions for two contingencies. First, all proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as they stood immediately before 28-1-1977 and were pending on 28-1-1977 before any Court or authority shall abate. Secondly any proceedings arising therefrom pending on 28-1-1977 before any Court or authority shall abate. The date 28-1-1977 is material because on that date all Sirdars in Uttar Pradesh were granted bhumidhari rights and Sec. 134 was omitted from the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act with effect from 28-1-1977 vide U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977. The intention of the Legislature was, as is clear from a reading of Sec. 73 of the said Act, that all proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135, Z.A. Act and all proceedings arising out of proceedings under Secs. The intention of the Legislature was, as is clear from a reading of Sec. 73 of the said Act, that all proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135, Z.A. Act and all proceedings arising out of proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135 of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act which were pending before any Court or Authority on 28-1-1977 shall abate. By the words "proceedings arising therefrom appeals and revisions were meant. By this section the Legislature intended that both (1) the proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and (2) the appeals or revisions or other incidental proceedings arising therefrom shall abate. To our mind, there is no ambiguity in the wordings of this section. 9. By his referring order dated 27-1-1978, Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Member stated that "I take this section also to mean that the proceedings taken in the Court below would not be affected because had that been the intention of the Amendment Act of 1977 it would have been explicitly mentioned that the suit would also abate, as specifically provided in Sec. 5 (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act" Sri A.K. Sharma learned Judicial Member started from a false promise and so ended at a wrong conclusion. The first step being wrong, the last step is bound to be wrong unless double fault is committed. The learned Judicial Member Sri A.K. Sharma insisted that the legislature should have explicitly mentioned that the 'suit' would also abate. It is common sense that U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are not suits, but are proceedings started on applications. Schedule II of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Column 3) describes cases under Secs. 167, 176, 191, 202(b), 206, 208, 211, 211, 212, 212-B, 215, 218, 222(5), 227, 229, 229-B, 299-C, 234, 244 and 284-A of U.P. Z.A and L.R Act as proceedings started on suit and described all other cases under other sections as proceedings started on application. Thus cases under Secs. 134 and 135 of Z.A. Act were proceedings started on applications. The word 'proceedings' is a wider word than 'suit' or 'application' and includes both of them. Hence the legislature purposely described the cases under Secs. Thus cases under Secs. 134 and 135 of Z.A. Act were proceedings started on applications. The word 'proceedings' is a wider word than 'suit' or 'application' and includes both of them. Hence the legislature purposely described the cases under Secs. 134 and 135 of the Z.A. Act would have been mentioned as 'suits' in Sec. 73 of Act VIII of 1977 Sri A.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Member failed to correctly interpret Sec. 73 of the said Act because he appears to have been intrigued by the use of the word 'proceedings' instead of the word suits. There was absolutely no reason for the legislature to explicitly mention that the suit would also abate. The learned Judicial Member Sri A.K. Sharma made a further observation that" it would have been explicitly mentioned that the suit would also abate, as has been specifically provided in Sec. 5(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act" Sec. 5(2) of the U.P. C.H. Act was more elaborate on this point and mentioned that whether of five fired instance or of appeal, reference or revision, shall stand apparted "However, Sec. 73 of Act VIII of 1977 is not suit less elaborate or less definite or less clear. It also lays down that (i) all proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135, Z.A Act and (2) all proceedings arising therefrom shall abate. The brevity of the exposition of Legislature's intention in Sec. 73 of Act VIII of 1977 cannot be construed in a narrower sense by comparing it to the wordings of Sec. 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. There cannot be a more fallacious way of construing the wordings of the section than by comparing the wordings of a similar section of another statute. When the wordings of Sec. 73 of U.P. Act VIII of 1977 are clear what is the necessity and use of comparing it to the wordings of Sec. 5(2), U.P.C.H. Act and then coming to a wrong comparison with other wordings of the same idea expressed elsewhere is not only unwarranted and undesirable but is also a sure way to wrong inference, either wittingly or unwittingly. 10. We are of the view that Sec. 73 of U.P. No. VIII of 1977 is very clear on the point that it envisages statement of all proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and all proceedings arising therefrom. 10. We are of the view that Sec. 73 of U.P. No. VIII of 1977 is very clear on the point that it envisages statement of all proceedings under Secs. 134 and 135 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and all proceedings arising therefrom. Sec. 73 of the Act makes transitory provision consequent on the automatic conferment of bhumidhari right on every sirdar and in this context every proceeding under Secs. 134 and 135 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has to be abated. All the proceedings, decided by the trial court or the first appellate Court or revisional Court, have to be abated. Whichever proceedings is abated the result will be the same as is laid down in sub-section 2 of Sec. 73 of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977, that is "Where any proceeding has abated under sub-section (1) that amount deposited for the acquisition of such rights shall be refunded to the person depositing the same or to his legal representatives as the case may be. "In view of this inevitable result of the abatement it would be immaterial whether the original proceeding in the trial Court is abated or not. In all circumstances of abatement the depositor will be entitled to the refund of the money deposited by him. Thus abatement of the appeal, revision or reference will also mean abatement of proceeding as it stood immediately before 28-1-1977. 11. Our answer to the question under reference is so as follows:- "Scope of Sec. 73 of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977 includes abatement of proceedings, decided by the Courts of original Jurisdiction along with the proceedings of the Courts of first appeal and revision, in cases arising out of Secs. 134 and 135 of Z.A and L.R. Act." 12. Let the case be put up before the judicial member, having territorial jurisdiction over this case.