JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is a review application dated November 12, 1979 for admission against judgment and decree dated October 9, 1979 passed by the Board with the ground that proceeding under Section 137-A now Section 137 of Act I of 1951 was liable to be abated under Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act, therefore, it should be set aside. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that according to explanation to Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act only uncontested proceeding under Section 134 to 137 were not to be abated rest are to be abated being proceeding in respect of declaration of right and interest in any land. Therefore, the contested proceeding under Sections 134 to 137 of Act I of 1951 should be abated under Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 3. The explanation of sub-section 2 of Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act runs as follows:- "Explanation - For the purpose of sub-section (3), a proceeding under the Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1900 or an uncontested proceedings under Section 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, shall not be deemed to be a proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest, in any land." It was substituted by Act No. XXXV of 1976 which came into force on November 13, 1976. 4. Sections 134 to 137-A were deleted by U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977 and its Section 73 which ran as follows laid down that proceeding under Sections 134 and 135 of Act No. I of 1951 as they stood before January 28, 1977 and all proceedings arising therefrom pending on such date before any court or authority shall abate:- "Transitory provisions - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force all proceedings for acquisition of Bhumidhari rights under Sections 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." 5. It was held by the majority of the learned Members of the Full Bench in Gaya Prasad v. Kailash 1975 R.D. 358. The view of Mr. It was held by the majority of the learned Members of the Full Bench in Gaya Prasad v. Kailash 1975 R.D. 358. The view of Mr. V.B. Vohra learned Member being contra, that in the proceedings under Section 134/137 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act declaration of right or interest of the applicant in the land was involved, hence the proceeding under Section 134 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pending in any court or authority should be abated on publication of notice under Section 24(2) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 6. In view of the above ruling the view of Mr. Y.N. Verma, learned Member reported in 1970 R.D. page 264 similar to the view of Mr. Nand Lal, learned Member descending from the view of majority learned Member in the above Full Bench case did not remain good law. 7. But it has been held by a larger Full Bench of the Board of five learned Members in Ghanshyam v. Narput Singh Revision No. 140 of 1977-78, Agra decided on August 16, 1982 that proceeding under Section 134 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pending before any court or authority should not be abated on the publication of the Notification under Section 4(2) of U.P.C.H. Act". 8. Thus it is clear that uncontested proceeding under Section 134 of Act I of 1951 was beyond the Scope of Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act by its explanation referred above. The contested proceedings under Section 134 of Act I of 1951 were held to be beyond the scope of Section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act by aforesaid larger Full Bench decision but by Section 73 of Act VIII of 1977 all proceedings contested or uncontested were mandatorily to be abated but not proceeding under old Section 137-A present Section 137 of Act I of 1951 even under Section 73 of Amending Act No. VIII of 1977 as that Section does not mention this section. 9. The present proceeding was under old Section 137-A and present Section 137 after amending Act VIII of 1977, therefore, it was not liable to be abated either under Section 5(20(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act or under Section 73 of Amending Act No. VIII of 1977. 10. In view of the above, this review application has got no force, hence it si no admitted and it hereby rejected.