ORDER K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Deputy Director of Consolidation from hearing the revision petition on merits. They have also prayed for a direction to abate the revision petitions Nos. 111 to 115 pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the revision petitions arising out of proceedings for title to the disputed plots are pending before the revisional Court. It appears that a Notification under S. 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued regarding the village wherein the disputed land is situate, objections regarding title to the disputed land were filed. They were dealt with by the consolidation authorities and thereafter by this Court in writ petition and special appeals. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court contained in Annexures C-1 to C-3 in the present writ petition revision petitions between the parties are pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur, during the pendency of the aforesaid revision petitions a Notification under S. 4A of the Act has been issued in respect of the village wherein the disputed land is situate. The petitioners contend that the revision petitions will abate under the provisions of S. 4A(2) of the Act and the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur has no jurisdiction to proceed with the hearing of the revision petitions pending before him. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition and have prayed for the reliefs mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revision petitions are pending before the revisional Court in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, hence in view of the provisions of S.52 of the Act, the revision petitions would be decided on merits and the Notification issued under S. 4A of the Act would be inapplicable to the disputed land. He has invited my attention to the provision of S. 52 of the Act which reads as below : "As soon as may be after fresh maps and records have been prepared (under sub-s. (1) of S. 27) the State Government shall issue a notification in the official 'Gazette' that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and the village or villages forming part of the unit shall then cease to be under consolidation operations : Provided that the issue of the notification under this section shall not affect the powers of the State Government to fix, distribute and recover the cost of operations under this Act. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-s. (1), any order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction in cases of writs filed under the provisions of the Constitution of India, or in cases or proceedings pending under sub-s. (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and the consolidation operations shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not been closed." 4. Relying on the aforesaid provision it has been contended on behalf of the contesting opposite parties that since the proceedings were pending when Notification under S. 52 of the Act regarding the village had been issued, hence the revision petitions pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation-Ghazipur would be decided on merits and the Notification issued under S. 4A of the Act would be inapplicable because the consolidation operation would not be deemed to have been closed regarding the disputed land. 5. Second submission raised on behalf of the contesting opposite parties is that the application moved by the petitioners has not been dealt with by the revisional Court hence the present writ petition is premature and not maintainable. 6. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that if necessary direction is not issued, the revisional Court shall decide the revision petitions against the petitioners and the present writ petition would become infructuous and the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated as technical defects would arise in the way of the petitioners in the form of findings of fact recorded by the revisional Court. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 7. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. S. 4A of the Act provides as below : "4-A. (1) Where the State Government is of opinion that in the case of a district or part thereof in respect of which a notification has already been issued under S. 52, it is expedient in public interest so to do, it may make a declaration by notification in the Gazette that such district or part thereof may again be brought under consolidation operation : Provided that no such declaration shall he issued within ten years from the date of the notification referred to in the said section. (2) The provisions of this Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every notification issued under sub-sec. (1) as they apply to a notification under S. 4". Section 5 sub-cl. 12) of the Act reads as below : (2) Upon the said publication of the notification under sub-sec. (2) of S. 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 of rights or interest in any land lying in the area or for 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 by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending, stand abated." 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the provision of S. 49 of the Act which reads as below : "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure-holders in respect of land lying in an area for which a Notification has been issued under sub-sec. (2) of S. 4, or adjudication of any other rights arising out of consolidation proceedings and in regard to which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act, shall be done in accordance with the provisions of this Act and 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 which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under this Act." Relying upon the aforesaid provision of S. 49 it has been contended that the bar created by the aforesaid provision is only against the civil or revenue court to entertain a proceeding regarding which relief could be obtained under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, and not any bar against the authority which would be called upon to decide the claims of the parties in pursuance of the Notification under S. 4-A of the Act. 9. On the materials before me in the present writ petition it is not very clear whether the revision petitions pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Ghazipur are regarding title of the parties to the disputed land or the revisions are regarding the miscellaneous proceedings about condonation of delay or about the restoration of the proceedings, hence it would not be proper to express any concluded opinion. Prima facie it appears that if the proceedings between the parties relate to title to the disputed land, they should abate. If the revision petitions arise out of restoration matter or out of proceedings for condonation of delay as preliminary objections they should not abate. They should rather be decided on merits and if the allegations regarding title is under consideration the authorities should abate the proceedings at that stage. 10. The bare perusal of S. 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act indicates that if the orders passed in the earlier proceedings have reached the stage of finality and they are only to be given effect to, the consolidation operation shall not be deemed to have been closed but if in the proceedings the claims of the parties are to be decided, the proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the amended law and in the light of subsequent events. I am not agreeable to the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the consolidation operations shall not be deemed to have been closed regarding the disputed land. As a fact when de-notification has taken place, the consolidation operations have ceased in pursuance of the Notification under S. 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Only for the purposes of giving effect to the orders passed in pending proceedings, the consolidation operation will be deemed to have not been closed. Due to the aforesaid provision, I do not think that it is the intention of the legislature that the proceedings before the consolidation authorities should go on under the previous notification under S. 4 of the Act as well as proceeding regarding the disputed land should go on in pursuance of the notification under S. 4-A of the Act. The practical view is that earlier proceedings arising out of the title proceedings should abate and the parties may be asked to agitate their claims in proceedings consequent upon the notification under S. 4-A of the Act. 11. The perusal of Rule 109-A also indicates that the consolidation operation shall not be deemed to have been closed only for the purpose of giving effect to the orders. To my mind, the provisions of S. 52 read with rule 109-A of the Act do not contemplate the situation that the consolidation authorities shall ignore the de-notification under S. 52 of the Act or the consequence of Notification issued under S. 4-A of the Act for all purposes. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the proceedings for correction of records and every suit and proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land lying in any area or for declaration or adjudication of any other right with regard to which any proceeding 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 by the Court or authority before whom such suit or proceeding is pending stand abated. The emphasis has been laid that in the aforesaid provision the word "authority" has also been mentioned hence the proceedings before the consolidation authorities in pursuance of the Notification under S. 4 should abate when Notification under S. 4-A has been issued. I have already indicated above that from practical point of view the proceedings regarding title should abate if they are pending on the date of Notification under S. 4-A of the Act. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance upon the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution in support of his contention that the proceedings pending before the revisional Court should abate but it is not necessary to deal with this question at present. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has attached with the present writ petition a certified copy of the order passed by the revisional Court on 20-12-1982 wherein the revisional Court has observed as below : "Atah is prarthnapatra ka nirnaya nigrani ke gun dosh per sunane ke baad hi kiya jayega. Yah avashya hai ki pahle is prarthnapatra par vichar kiya jayega our abate karne yogya paya jayega to gun dosh par adesh ninin likha jayega. Paksh is prarthana patra tatha nigrani ke gun dosh par hhi hahas karen." 15. In my opinion the petitioners are not entitled to issue of prohibition because the revisional Court has jurisdiction to decide the question of abatement. Mere apprehension on the part of the petitioners that the revisional Court shall not abate the proceedings or decide the claims of the parties on merits would be no ground for issuing a writ of prohibition as desired by the petitioners. 16. On the materials in the present writ petition nature of revision petitions pending before the revisional Court is not ascertainable, hence it would not be proper to issue direction to abate the revision petitions pending - before the revisional court. Moreover, the revisional Court has indicated in its order dated 20-12-1982 that it shall decide the question of abatement on the date fixed. It would not be proper for this Court to issue a direction to decide the claim in a particular way as desired by the petitioners. The revisional Court shall decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. To me it appears that on the basis of mere apprehension the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely. 17. It would not be proper for this Court to issue a direction to decide the claim in a particular way as desired by the petitioners. The revisional Court shall decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with law. To me it appears that on the basis of mere apprehension the petitioners have approached this Court prematurely. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition deserves dismissal at this stage and I accordingly dismiss the writ petition and direct the parties to bear their own costs.