JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member - On April 20, 1978 Shri P.C. Saxena, a learned judicial member of this Board was hearing reference Nos. 853 and 899 of 1971-72 district Mainpuri. It appears that a question about the legality, extent and effect of a notification under Section 4, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in respect of an area, which included some land which fell within the Municipal limits, was raised before the learned judicial member Sri P.C. Saxena, who felt that "The legal issue involved is one of importance" and he referred the matter to a Larger Bench. 2. The learned judicial member, Shri P.C. Saxena, did not frame any question for reference. He summarised the legal issue as follows. Section 3(2-A) U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act demines' consolidation under Section 4 has been issued, except such portions thereof to which the provisions of U.P.Z.A. Act do not apply. Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. authorises the State Government to bring any district or part thereof under consolidation operation by making a declaration to that effect in the Gazette. Section 5, U.P.C.H. Act lays down, inter alia, the pending suits about land shall abate. In the case before the Board the entire village, in which the land in suit was situate, had been notified under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act though the village include the land in suit which fell within the Municipal limits of District Mainpuri where U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was not applicable. The question arose whether in spite of the definition of 'consolidation area' in Section 3(2-A) U.P.C.H. Act to the effect that it will not include such portions thereof to which the provisions of U.P.Z.A. Act do not apply, the whole area notified under Section 4. U.P. Ch.H. Act, will be deemed to be 'consolidation area' even if the whole are included portions thereof to which U.P.Z.A. Act did not apply? 3. To facilitate understanding of the 'legal issue' it would be relevant to narrate here, succinctly, the facts and circumstances of the case. Village Akruiya District Mainpuri has some portion of its area falling within the Municipal limits of Mainpuri city, and that portion included plot No. 118. The State Government had issued a notification under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act in respect of the whole area of village Akruiya. Village Akruiya District Mainpuri has some portion of its area falling within the Municipal limits of Mainpuri city, and that portion included plot No. 118. The State Government had issued a notification under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act in respect of the whole area of village Akruiya. As the disputed plot was situate in a Municipal area and as there could not be any consolidation operation in such an area in view of Section 3(2-A), U.P.C.H. Act, the consolidation authorities did not act under Section 5, U.P.C.H. Act in respect of the land situate in the Municipal area aforesaid. However, due to inadvertence, an ex-parte order in respect of the plot in suit was passed by the Consolidation Officer. It is not necessary to give the history of that litigation here. Suffice it to say that on May 31, 1968 Shri H.M. Mehrotra, learned Deputy Director of Consolidation, quashed all the orders of his subordinate courts on the ground that notification under Section 4 U.P.C.H. Act could not be issued in resect of an area which fell within a Municipal limits and that the Consolidation Authorities were not empowered to decide any case in respect of the aforesaid area. Thereafter review application was filed but it was dismissed by the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation on April 21, 1970. It appears that a writ petition was filed in the High Court, but that was not admitted. Then Vimal Kumar Misra (revisionist) filed a suit under Section 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. Act in respect of plot No. 118 and also filed a case for cancellation of Bhumidhari Sanad issued in the name of Sone. On April 18, 1969 Shri Bhikka Lal, learned Assistant Collector Ist Class, Mainpuri, ordered that the suit under Sections 229-B/209 U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had abated. On March 7, 1970 the Tahsildar Mainpuri ordered abatement of the proceedings under Section 137-A, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Against the order dated April 18, 1969 Sone Lal and others filed an appeal. It was converted into a revision and Shri Syed Hussain, learned Additional Commissioner, recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of abatement passed by Shri Bhikkalal, Assistant Collector Ist Class be set aside. Against the order dated April 18, 1969 Sone Lal and others filed an appeal. It was converted into a revision and Shri Syed Hussain, learned Additional Commissioner, recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of abatement passed by Shri Bhikkalal, Assistant Collector Ist Class be set aside. Against the order dated March 7, 1970 of the Tahsildar revision was filed by Sone Lal and others and Shri Syed Hussain, learned Additional Commissioner, has no commended that the order of abatement be set aside. Thus the two references Nos. 853 and 899 came up before Shri P.C. Saxena, learned judicial member of this Board and he referred the matter to this Larger Bench. 4. Shri G.N. Verma, learned advocate for the O.P. Shyama Devi Dube, who had purchased the disputed plot from Sone Lal by means of a registered sale deed dated January 31, 1960, argued against the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner. Shri H.O.K. Srivastava learned Advocate for the revisionist-plaintiff Vimal Kumar Misra argued in support of the said reference. 5. Shri G.N. Verma, learned Advocate, argued that under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act if the State Government is of the opinion that a district or a part thereof may be brought under Consolidation operation it may make a declaration to that effect in the official Gazette and then the consequences mentioned in Section 5, U.P.C.H. Act will ensure until the area is denotified under Section 52, U.P.C.H. Act or until the State Government Cancels the notification in respect of the whole or Part of the area by exercising its powers under Section 6(1) U.P.C.H. Act. He has further argued that it is immaterial if a certain area could not be brought under consolidation operation in view of Section 3(2-A) U.P.C.H. Act. The fact which matters is that the power of the State Government under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act is unfettered by the definition clause mentioned in Section 3(2-A) U.P.C.H. Act, and so the notification may be correct or incorrect, the courts cannot decide whether the notification applies to the whole area or to a portion of the area. If some portion has been inadvertently included in the notification the State Government is authorised under Section 6(1) U.P.C.H. Act to cancel the notification in respect of that portion, but until the State Government does so the consequences mentioned in Section 5 U.P.C.H. Act, regarding abatement, must follow. If some portion has been inadvertently included in the notification the State Government is authorised under Section 6(1) U.P.C.H. Act to cancel the notification in respect of that portion, but until the State Government does so the consequences mentioned in Section 5 U.P.C.H. Act, regarding abatement, must follow. 6. The argument of Shri G.N. Verma is ex-facie attractive, but all the same, it is devoid of merit. We agree that Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act is absolute in terms of and a plain reading of this Section will give an impression that it will apply to all area which had been notified by the State Government under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act irrespective of the fact whether the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applies to that area or not. We are of the opinion that Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act, cannot be read in isolation and that it must be read along with Section 3(2-A), U.P.C.H. Act, which is very clear on the point that consolidation area will not include a portion of area to which U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not apply. 7. Section 3(2-A), U.P.C.H. Act lays down that "Consolidation Area" means the area, in respect of which a notification under Section 4 has been issued, except such portion thereof to which the provisions of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 1950, do not apply. A plain reading of Section 3(2-A) U.P.C.H. Act shows that notification under Section 4. U.P.C.H. Act can be issued in respect of an area, but if that area includes a portion to which U.P.Z.A. Act does not apply, that portion will not be deemed to be a consolidation area. 8. Shri H.O.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist has cited several rulings which, in unmistakable terms, clarify the position regarding interpretation of Section 3(2-A) and 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Those ruling are chronologically mentioned below:- (A) The first is Badri Dube v. The Commissioner Varanasi Division, 1969 A.W.R. 317 (H.C.). It was held that "Form the narration of above sections, it is, therefore, abundantly clear that the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act applied to the whole of the U.P. except the areas which were included in Municipalities, Notified Areas, Cantonment or Town Areas..... Under Section 4 of the Act, a declaration is issued by the State Government when a unit is placed under consolidation operation. Under Section 4 of the Act, a declaration is issued by the State Government when a unit is placed under consolidation operation. "Unit" has been defined in the Act as a village or part thereof, and when the Director of Consolidation so notifies, two or more villages or parts thereof, for which a single scheme of consolidation is to be framed. This therefore, means that under Section 4, a notification shall be issued in respect of one unit although that unit may consist of portions where the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is applicable and portions to which the U.P. Tenancy Act is applicable. Under Section 3(2-A) the consolidation area shall be carved out of the unit and this area would be the area to which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act apply. This further means that the consolidation area would not include any land to which the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act does not apply." (Emphasis supplied). (B) In Sheo Nath Singh v. Ram Chandra, 1972 R.D. 73 (B.R.) reliance was placed on 1969 A.W.R. 317 (supra) and was held that "C.H. Act applies to only that area where the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 is in force. (C) In the ruling Badri Dube v. The Commissioner Varanasi Division 1969 A.W.R. 317 (supra) was approved, and was accordingly held that "......the Consolidation of Holdings Act applies only to such area where the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is in force." (D) In 1980 Revenue Decision 149 Shri R.M. Sahai, Judge also relied on 1969 A.W.R. 317 (supra) and held that, "Section 3(2-A) of the Act excluded those areas from operation of Consolidation Act to which provisions of U.P.Z.A. Act I of 1951 do not apply. The exclusion is specific. In other words, Consolidation Act applies only to that area to which U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been extended. It cannot be applied to any other area." 9. The exclusion is specific. In other words, Consolidation Act applies only to that area to which U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has been extended. It cannot be applied to any other area." 9. Shri G.N. Verma, learned Advocate for the opposite party then argued that the rulings referred to above, except the ruling of the Board (1972 R.D. 73) do not apply because these were given by the High Court which had power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the notification and that the Board of Revenue has got no such power to quash the notification of the State Government, and hence, as long as the notification under Section 4, U.P.C.H. Act, is not cancelled by the State Government, under Section 6(1) U.P.C.H. Act, the notification will govern the whole area which had been notified even if that area includes portion where Z.A. Act does not apply. We do not agree with this interpretation. There is no reason to wait for cancellation of the said notification by the State Government under Section 6(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act. There is no need for the State Government to cancel the notification in so far as it relates to a portion which is included in the Municipal limit of Mainpuri City. A combined reading of Section 4 U.P.C.H. Act and Section 3(2-A) C.H. Act will make it clear that the notification under Section 4, C.H. Act will be made in respect of a district or part thereof. According to Section 3(2-A), C.H. Act the area in respect of which a notification under Section 4, C.H. Act has been issued, will mean the consolidation area, but inspite of the notification, the portion to which U.P.Z.A. Act does not apply will be excepted or excluded. Thus the portion to which U.P.Z.A. Act does not apply (in this case the portion which is within the Municipal limits where Z.A. Act does apply but where Urban Z.A. Act applies) will be automatically excluded from the consolidation area, and consequently from the consolidation operation, by virtue of Section 3(2-A), C.H. Act. 10. As Shri P.C. Saxena, learned Judicial Members of this Board had not framed any question for reference, we could not confine the argument to that non-existing question. 10. As Shri P.C. Saxena, learned Judicial Members of this Board had not framed any question for reference, we could not confine the argument to that non-existing question. The referring order mentions Section 5 C.H. Act which deals with the consequences of notification under Section 4 C.H. Act and one of the consequences mentioned is that all pending proceedings and suits for correction of records and for declaration of rights or interests in the consolidation area shall abate. In the case before us the suit had been admittedly filed after the notification under Section 4, C.H. Act. Hence the suit and the proceeding could not have abated under Section 5, C.H. Act. Yet the trial courts had ordered abatement of the suit under Section 229-B/209 Z.A. Act and the proceeding under Section 137-A, Z.A. Act. The learned Additional Commissioner also did not touch this point and he held the order of abatement illegal on the ground that the land in suit was included in the consolidation area and that C.H. Act did not apply at all. As the point has been argued before us, and this is an important point of law, and as the order of reference has mentioned the question of abatement under Section 5 C.H. Act, we will observe that if a suit or proceeding is filed after notification under Section 4, C.H. Act the question of abatement will not arise, instead that suit or proceeding will not be entertainable in view of the provisions of Section 49, C.H. Act. We are not required to delate upon this point because this matter has been concluded by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Badal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1970 R.D. 240 (H.C., F.B.). The purpose of Section 5 and Section 49, C.H. Act is similar as far as it relates to the adjudication of cases pertaining to consolidation area. The purpose of Section 5 and Section 49, C.H. Act is similar as far as it relates to the adjudication of cases pertaining to consolidation area. While Section 5 C.H. Act abates all suits or appeals or revisions or proceedings pending on the date when notification under Section 4 of the C.H. Act is made, Section 49 C.H. Act lays down that when a notification under Section 4 C.H. Act is issued "No Civil or Revenue Court shall entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the C.H. Act". Section 5 C.H. Act terminates pending cases, while Section 49 Consolidation of Holdings Act bars institution of subsequent cases as long as consolidation operation does not end with denotification. 11. Now, we will answer the reference as follows:- (a) "The notification under Section 4, C.H. Act, about the district or part thereof will be applicable only to the area where the U.P.Z.A. Act applies, and the portion where U.P.Z.A. Act does not apply (area covered by Municipality Town Area, Cantonment where U.P.T. Act applied or where Urban Area Z.A. Act applies) will be necessarily and inevitably excluded by virtue of exception mentioned in Section 3(2-A) C.H. Act." (b) A suit or proceeding, which is filed after the notification under Section 4, C.H. Act will not abate under Section 5, in view of Section 49, C.H. Act." 12. Let the files be returned to the learned Member having jurisdiction over the case.