JUDGMENT G.S. Tiwari, J. - This reference made on July 27, 1978 by Sri G.S. Sial, Member, whether the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, shall abate under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act during the pendency of the consolidation operations, was once decided by a Division Bench on September 12, 1979 but being an ex parte order, it was set aside by a subsequent Division Bench on November 2, 1981 and the point involved being considered of great importance, the question reproduced below was referred to for decision by a Larger Bench by the same order November 2, 1981 and the present Bench was formed accordingly by the Chairman/Senior most Member, Board of Revenue on August 7, 1982:- "Whether the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act pending on the date of publication of notification under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act regarding the land under consolidation will abate or not?" 2. It appears that the question contain some typing errors and it is desirable to put it in proper shape as below: "Whether the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, pending on the date of publication of notification under S. 4(2) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act covering the land in dispute, will abate under Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act or not?" 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 4. Sri V.K. Misra, learned counsel for Birja Harijan argued that for a better appraisal, it was necessary to consider the definition of 'consolidation', 'consolidation of 'consolidation area' and 'land' given under Section 3 of the U.P.C.H. Act and also the provisions under Section 28 of the Act. He particularly stressed on the definition of 'land' which apart from the agricultural purposes includes site, being a part of the holding, of a house or other similar structures and trees etc., and put in view of Section 28 of the Act, unless the delivery of possession was made to the Gaon Sabha, it had no right to obtain, ejectment of an unauthorised occupant by proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. He further argued that for contravention of the provisions in Section 5(1)(c)(i) of the U.P.C.H. Act, penalty is provided under Section 45-A(1) and it was necessary to proceeded under Section 122-B of the Act. The act prohibited under Section 5(1)(c)(i) appears to be use of a part of the holding for construction of a house. He also referred to Section 48-B by which there could be exchange of land amongst the tenure-holders including the L.M.C. and only after the delivery of possession under Section 28, the position could be clear and the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act could follow. He further argued that under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act any revenue court was barred from deciding rights on land which were the subject matter in the consolidation operations and it followed that during the pendency of the Consolidation, the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act could not continue. In support, he cited rulings reported in 1970 R.D. 92 1970 R.D. 240, 1979 R.D. 136 and 1980 R.D. 21. 5. The learned D.G.C. (R.) for the Gaon Sabha argued that when the consolidation operations take place, the land under the scheme is made into Chaks for different land holders to whom the Chaks are allotted and the land may even be exchanged, that the land in question had been reserved for Harijan Abadi, therefore, the scope of Section 122-B of the Act which is wider and includes the property and land both, included the sites for Abadi and the proceedings could continue. He argued that the proceedings in respect of the land which came within the definition of Section 3(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act will abate but the proceedings for other property including Abadi sites would not abate. He further argued that there had been an amendment on June 3, 1981 and an Act had also been passed by which Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act had been amended and the amendment provided for initiating proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in respect of any land, possession over which had been delivered or demand to have been delivered or deemed to have been delivered under the Act to the Gaon Sabha. This amendment, he argued, had actually been enforced from November 10, 1980. This amendment, he argued, had actually been enforced from November 10, 1980. He argued that in party with the suit under Section 209 of the Act, the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act would also abate when a notification for commencement of the consolidation operation was issued. In a nut-shell, on such notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act being issued, the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act would abate if the land was included within the definition of land under Section 3(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act and possession to the Gaon Sabha/L.M.C. had not yet been delivered under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 6. By the above controversy, three points are raised - (i) whether penal Section under Section 45-A(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act prohibits proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (ii) whether sites, land or property not included within the definition of 'land' in Section 3(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act can attract the provision under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. and (iii) whether parity between Section 122-B and Section 209 as regards the applicability of provisions for abatement under Section 5(2) has been at all established. 7. There is no doubt that in various matters criminal and civil actions according to law can co-exist and can be resorted to unless one of them is specifically prohibited. Examples are not wanting in special Acts and otherwise. No case law to the contrary has been cited by the learned counsel for the applicant. In the circumstances, it must be deemed that proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act cannot be considered barred or unnecessary on this count. The same position becomes clear from the provision under Section 5(2) of the Act itself, that unless it is 'land' under Section 3(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the provision for abatement will not apply. House sites within the existing abadi area and sites kept or specific public purpose before the commencement of the consolidation operations and so not already included in any agricultural holding or Sirdari/Bhumidhari rights barred under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, will no doubt, be not included in the definition of 'land' or will be outside the consolidation scheme, as the case be, and proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act for ejectment from such property can not be abated. 8. 8. It also appears desirable to consider the definitions of 'consolidation', 'consolidation area' and 'land' as defined in the Consolidation of Holdings Act and the scope of Section 28 and Section 48-B of the Act at this stage. The 'consolidation' vide Section 3(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act means 'rearrangement of holdings in a unit amongst several tenure-holders in such a way as to make their respective holdings more compact'. The explanation under this definition gives a just of land/areas which are not included in a holding and particular mention may be made of land mentioned under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which is not included in a holding according to this explanation. These lands inter-alia, include pasture land, land covered by water, land set apart for public purposes under the U.P.C.H. Act, etc. The definition of 'holding' is given as 'a parcel or parcels of land held under one tenure by a tenure-holder singly or jointly with other tenure-holders'. Under Section 3(11) of the U.P.C.H. Act, the tenure holder means 'a Bhumidhar or Sirdar and includes- (a) an Asami, (b) A Government lessee or Government grantee, or (c) a co-operative farming society satisfying such conditions as may be prescribed. The consolidation area' is defined as 'the area in respect of which a notification under Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act has been issued, except such portion thereof to which the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950, do not apply. 'Land' is defined as 'land held or occupied for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry (including pisciculture and poultry farming) and includes- (i) the site, being a part of a holding, a house or other similar structure, and (ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on the plots forming the holdings. From these definitions, it emerges that 'land' in section 3(5) is only land comprised in a holding. The Gaon Sabha land is not land comprised in a holding. In Salik Ram v. Gaon Sabha 1980 R.D. 57, it was held that the land covered by Nala was not land within the definition of 'land' in Section 3(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act and so not covered by the consolidation scheme and the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act will not abate. This appears to be the only ruling which may be considered directly to the point. This appears to be the only ruling which may be considered directly to the point. The definitions of 'consideration', 'holding' and 'tenure-holder' make it clear and 'land' under Section 3(5) of the U.P.C.H. Act does not include such land which was already in possession of the Goan Sabha and being not part of a holding, was not covered by 'consolidation' and not included in 'consolidation' scheme'. 9. A plain reading of Section 28 shows that it refers to the delivery of possession of such lands which have been made into Chaks and allotted to various tenure-holders or the L.M.C. out of the lands which were included in the consolidation scheme being within the definition of 'holding' and 'consolidation'. Such land which was already in possession of the Gaon Sabha and was not covered by 'consolidation' is not to be delivered possession of to the L.M.C. under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act, it is only with reference to new lands of which possession is delivered under Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act to the L.M.C. after consolidation scheme is finalised, and which had not been in possession of the Gaon Sabha before the consolidation operations commenced, that proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act could be taken up only after such delivery of possession. The scope of Section 28 of the U.P.C.H. Act does not cover other lands belonging to the Gaon Sabha which were already in possession of the L.M.C. 10. A possibility in view of Section 19A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act does not exist that a land of public utility belonging to the Gaon Sabha may get shifted in accordance with the procedure outlined for the purpose, but in such eventuality, a bonafide question of title is bound to be raised if any individual has any interest in such land and the question of title is bound to be settled during consolidation proceedings. Since Section 122-B(4-B) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides for staying the proceeding necessarily, the question of continuing the proceedings after the consolidation operations are over, can be decided with reference to any such shifting of land of public utility under Section 19-A(2) or the land no longer remaining the Gaon Sabha land, in which situation the proceedings having become infructuous, may have to be dropped ultimately. In such cases, too, mere stay of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act serves the purpose, being in accordance with law as well, and no abatement is called for. By the very nature of the provision under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, if a proceedings has to be abated, a respective duty is cast on the consolidation court to complete such action which has been left incomplete by abatement, but since the pure and summary ejectment under Section 122-B of the Act is without the scope of consolidation proceedings such case could only be stayed as provided under the law and could not be abated under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 11. Same consideration as in para above will apply to a land in varg 4 if it is allotted under Section 19-A(2) of the Act to an individual although Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as amended up-to-date rules out any scope for such title of the objector-claimant. In any case, a mere stay of proceedings under Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act is proper, legal and sufficient. The question of abatement does not arise. 12. A Similar misunderstanding appears to prevail on the scope of Section 48-B of the U.P.C.H. Act also. This provision does not permit exchange of possession of any land belonging to the Gaon Sabha. It is only as a result of orders passed under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act that certain exchange of possession amongst the tenure-holders including the L.M.C. may become necessary. Section 48 of the Act provides for revision and reference. It may better be reproduced. "48 Revision and reference. (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned, an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3). (2) Powers under sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1). (Explanation - For the purpose of this section, Settlement Officers Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidators and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.) From this it becomes evident that exchange of possession is confined to land/area which has been within the consolidation scheme and some land which had been newly allotted to the L.M.C. along with other tenure-holders may on revision or reference necessitate further change resulting in exchange of possession. Obviously, such exchange does not involve other words lands which were already in possession of the L.M.C. and were not included in the consolidation scheme. 13. As regards parity between Section 122-B and 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, for a better appreciation of this aspect, it appears desirable to look into the first appearance and development of Section 122-B of the Act. This section was for the first time added by Act XXVIII of 1961 and is always deemed to have been there, as follows : "122-B. Power of Land Management Committee and the Collector, (1) Where any property vested, under the provisions of this Act, in a Gaon Sabha or a local authority, is damaged or misappropriated by any person, or where any land so vested in it, or nay vacant land or any land, which it is entitled to take possession of under this Act, is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act by any person the Land Management Committee or the local authority, as the case may be, shall take steps forthwith to recover compensation for damages to, or misappropriation of the property and for the recovery of possession of the land together with damages caused by wrongful occupation. (2) Where the Land Management Committee or the local authority fails to take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) within a period of six months from the date of wrongful occupation, and one month from the date of damage or misappropriation, the Collector may, except in a case involving a bonafide question of title, on an application of the Chairman, Member or Secretary of the Land Management Committee or the local authority, as the case may be, or on facts coming to his notice otherwise, take steps for the ejectment of the person in wrongful occupation and for recovery of compensation for wrongful occupation of the land or damages to, or mis-appropriation of the property. (3) the procedure to be followed in any action taken under sub-section (2) shall be such as may be prescribed. (4) The decision of the Collector under sub-section (2) shall subject to the result of a suit by the aggrieved party before a court of competent jurisdiction, be final and conclusive, anything to the contrary contained in any other law notwithstanding. (4) The decision of the Collector under sub-section (2) shall subject to the result of a suit by the aggrieved party before a court of competent jurisdiction, be final and conclusive, anything to the contrary contained in any other law notwithstanding. (5) Rule 115-C to 116-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 shall be, and be always deemed to have been made under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as amended by this Act, as it this section has been in force on all material dates." Rule 115-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, which finds mention in Section 122-B(5), is also reproduced below: "115-H. Nothing in rules 115-D to 115-G shall debar any person from establishment of his rights in a court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the law for the time being in order has been made by the Collector." The section was amended and its sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) were substituted by new sub-sections (2), (3), (4), (4-A), (4-B), (4-D), (4-E) and (4-F) by the amendment Act No. XXX of 1975 with effect from August 19, 1975 and the provisions contained as reproduced below till further amendment by the U.P. Land Laws (amendment) Act XXXV of 1976 (those were minor amendments) and later by the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981, coming into force on June 3, 1981 vide notification No. 1429/XVII-V-1-58-81 dated June 3, 1981: "122-B. (2) Where the Land Management Committee or the local authority has failed to take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) within a period of two months from the date of causing of damage or of mis-appropriation, or, as the case may be, the date of wrongful occupation, the Collector shall proceed to take action in accordance with sub-section (3) to (4-D). (3) Where the Collector is of opinion that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or mis-appropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub-section in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for misappropriation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recorded from him, or, as the case may be, why he should not be evicted from such land. (4) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (3), fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Collector may allow in this behalf or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Collector may direct that such person shall be evicted from the land and, may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may also direct that the amount of compensation for damages or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation, as the case may be, be recovered from such person as arrears of revenue. (4-A) If the Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damages or misappropriation referred to in the notice under sub-section (3) or, as the case may be, is not in occupation of the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act, he shall discharge the notice. (4-B) If during the course of inquiry in proceedings under this section the person in occupation of the land referred to in sub-section (1) has produced any evidence of title to such land which appears to the Collector to raise bona fide question of title, then the Collector shall, by order, require such person to file a suit for declaration of his title under Section 229-B in a competent court within a period of one month from the date of such order, and stay further proceedings in the meantime. (4-C) The suit referred to in sub-section (4-B) may be filed notwithstanding anything contained in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. (4-D) Where the person referred to in sub-section (4-B) fails to file such suit within the said period or where the suit, if filed, is dismissed, and Collector shall direct that such person shall be evicted and may for that purpose use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and where such person succeeds in the suit wholly or partly, the Collector shall either drop or hold further proceedings under this section accordingly. (4-E) Every order of the Collector under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. (4-E) Every order of the Collector under this section shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. (4-F) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing sub-sections where any person who is landless agricultural labourer belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is in occupation of any land vested in a Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (not being land mentioned in Section 132), having occupied it from before June 20, 1975, and the land so occupied together with any land held by him from before the said date as Bhumidhar Sirdar or Asami does not exceed 1.26 hectares (3.125 acres), then no action under the section shall be taken by the Land Management Committee or the Collector against such person and it shall be deemed that such person has been admitted as Sirdar of that land under Section 195. Explanation - The expression 'landlord' and 'agricultural labourer' shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in Section 198." 14. The sub-sections (3), (4), (4-A), (4-B), (4-C), (4-D) and (4-E) as amendment from June 3, 1981 are also reproduced below: "122-B. (3). If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector may allow in this behalf, or if cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector may direct that such person may be evicted from the land may for that purpose, use, or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may direct that the amount of compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. (4) If the Assistant Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage of misappropriation or wrongful occupation referred to in the notice under sub-section (2) he shall discharge the notice. (4-A) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or sub-section (4) may within thirty days from the date of such order prefer a revision before the Collector on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) or Section 333. (4-B) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as may be prescribed. (4-B) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as may be prescribed. (4-C) Every order of the Assistant Collector under this section shall, subject to the provision of sub-section (4-A) and (4-B), be final. (4-D) Every order of the Collector under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4-A), be final. (4-E) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector in respect of any property under this section may file a suit in the court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property. Provided that no such suit shall be against any order of the Assistant Collector, if a revision is preferred to the Collector under sub-section(4-A). Explanation - For the purpose of this section the expression 'Collector' means the office appointed as Collector under the provisions of the U.P. Land Reforms Act, 1901 and includes an includes an Additional Collector." 15. A perusal of these provisions of law would show that even before August 19, 1975, there was indication in sub-section (2) and (4) how a bona fide question of title if raised during the enquiry in respect of land found in occupation of a person 'otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act' would be dealt with. The words 'except in a case involving a bona fide question of title' occurring in sub-section (2) and reference to a suit filed by the aggrieved party in sub-section (4), together with the provision under R. 115-H that there was no bar to establishment of rights by a suit in competent court, make it amply clear that no duty was cast on the court to decide the title in the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act. It is evident that the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act were not meant to decide the question of title or interest in the land, for such purpose, a declaratory suit had to be filed in a competent court. It is also consistent with the summary nature of these proceedings. It is, therefore, obvious that the provisions under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act could not be applied to the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It is also consistent with the summary nature of these proceedings. It is, therefore, obvious that the provisions under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act could not be applied to the proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The subsequent provision in sub-section (4-B) made it more clear that in proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act, the court had not to involve itself into considering the disputed question of title. As soon as such position emerged, the court on satisfaction that the question arising was bona fide, had to allow opportunity to the objector to file a suit for declaration of his title in a competent court and had to stay the proceedings. The proceedings remained stayed until the title was decided. Evidently, the court deciding the title is not the court in which the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act are pending and the provisions under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act can be applied only to such court where the proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land in pending. 16. The same position holds goods even after June 3, 1981 for the amended section also does not allow any scope to the court decide the question of title or interest in any land. The provision in Section 122-B (4-E) of the Act permitting filing or a suit by any person aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector or Collector, 'in a court of competent jurisdiction to establish the right claimed by him in such property' make it clear that the court proceedings under Section 122-B does not decide, the question of title or interest in land but only examines the prima facie position as to the land vested in the Gaon Sabha and the person being in occupation otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act. As a consequence, even after June 3, 1981 these proceedings would not be liable to be abated under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. 17. The above consolidations show that these provisions of law under Section 122-B were always summary in nature and never included any adjudication of title which is the subject that involves Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. It is also plainly seen that Section 122-B and Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are quite distinguishable. 17. The above consolidations show that these provisions of law under Section 122-B were always summary in nature and never included any adjudication of title which is the subject that involves Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. It is also plainly seen that Section 122-B and Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act are quite distinguishable. The former relates to ejectment from the Gaon Sabha land settled as such while the latter relates to ejectment from the land forming part of a holding as well as the Gaon Sabha land and also includes according to the settled law determination of rights of the land-holder before the ejectment is ordered. 18. The question of purity between Z.A. and L.R. Act (and also Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act which is and has been considered equivalent and parallel to the new Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act) can now be taken up, with reference to various rulings cited during the arguments based on this point. The ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baljeet Singh v. Risal Singh 1962 R.D. 334, relates to Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and it was held that in view of the consolidation operations coming into operation, the appeals arising out of suits for ejectment do not become infructuous. The ruling by the Hon'ble High (Alld.) in Sayed Ashfaq Hasan v. Waqf Alal Nafs etc 1967 R.D. 286 relates to suits claiming relief of possession over proprietary rights in Zamindari property and it was held that Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act does not apply and the appeal arising out of such suit cannot be stayed or abated. It was held that- "The functions of the consolidation authorities are limited to deciding questions relating to tenure-holders' right only, that is rights of Bhumidhars or Sirdars or Asamis in respect of agricultural holdings and beyond this consolidation authorities can decide nothing. Possession over proprietary rights in Zamindari villages now vests in the State. As to who was entitled to the compensation and rehabilitation amounts cannot be determined by the consolidation authorities. Possession over proprietary rights in Zamindari villages now vests in the State. As to who was entitled to the compensation and rehabilitation amounts cannot be determined by the consolidation authorities. Hence where the relief claimed in the suit was a decree for actual possession in respect of the proprietary rights in Zamindari villages, the appeal in the instant case could neither he stayed not had abated under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act." In Sawant Singh v. Pandit Narain Sukh 1970 R.D. 92, the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue held that- "Section 5 of the Act amended does not state that it will operate only during the pendency of the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. What is required to be pending is only a suit, appeal revision or any other proceedings before civil or revenue court. Hence in the instant case, even though the village in which the suit land lies had got denotified, the second appeal together with the suit under Section 175/179 U.P. Tenancy Act would abate under the amended provisions of Section 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act." In Badal v. D.D.C. 1970 R.D. 240, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble High Court (Alld.) held that- "Section 40 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act bars a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act if the land in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed is situated in an area under consolidation operations. A person who has still limitation to tile a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the date of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act has every right to get relief under the provisions of the latter Act notwithstanding his failure to file a suit under Section 209 of the former Act." In Smt. Kishan Devi v. D.D.C. 1973 R.D. 196, the Hon'ble High Court (Alld.) held that- "Section 49 bars the jurisdiction of the court of entertain a suit under Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. If the jurisdiction of the court is barred, no person can file a suit. If the jurisdiction of the court is barred, no person can file a suit. Hence, the non-filing of the suit would confer no rights on the person who was in possession on the date the consolidation proceedings had started, of the limitation for a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act had not till then run out." In Banwari Lal v. Tulsi Ram 1970 R.D. 136, the Hon'ble High Court (Alld.) held that- "Where the suit in regular courts is not for adjudication of title to the grove land but is for removal of the trespass a suit was neither liable to be abated nor was entertain-able by the Revenue Court." On the question of character of land and title to its possession, the ruling in Ram Narain v. Banwari Prasad 1974 R.D. 25 was relied upon, which held such question not covered by the provision for abatement under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act. The ruling in Chheda Singh v. Gaon Sabha 1980 R.D. 21 distinguishes 'Abadi sites' from 'land in the Abadi site which is occupied by well or a building or is appurtenant thereto' and did not discuss the question of abatement but only held that since the disputed land was occupied by a well, building or was appurtenant thereto, inspite of being within Abadi, it was not just Abadi site, had not vested in the Gaon Sabha nad so no ejectment could be ordered. 19. The rulings quoted above make the point clear that the proceedings under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under Section 175 of the U.P. Tenancy Act have to be abated under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act on the publication of the notification under Section 4(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act and that a question of title to possession is not covered by the scope of abatement. In these rulings, the parity between Section 122-B and Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act has not been discussed but the questions discussed in Baljeet Singh v. Risal Singh, Syed Ashtaq Hasan v. Waqf Alai Nafs etc., and Banwari Lal v. Tulsi Ram 1979 R.D. 136 leave no doubt as to the distinct difference between the question of title and question of possession. A question of possession cannot amount to question of title by any stretch of imagination, particularly when distinctly different forum are provided for the determination of the two questions. As was discussed earlier from August 19, 1976 onwards the specific wordings under Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act and after June 3, 1981 in Section 122-B(3) to Section 122-B(4-E) of the Act rule out any decision on title to land by the court and so this section must be deemed substantially different in scope and effect from Section 209. For the period earlier to August 19, 1975 also Rule 115-H of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, besides the wordings of the section itself, leave no doubt that the court was not required to go into the question of title any more than the prima facie examination of maintainability. It is well known that the order passed for ejectment under Section 122-B of the Act has never been recognised to have any effect on the declaration of title by a competent court, nor was any order under Section 122-B of the Act held to bar any suit for declaration by the aggrieved party. Therefore, the settled view must be held to be in favour of no parity being established between Section 122-B and Section 209 of the Act and any decision on the basis of such parity has to be ruled out. Accordingly, no question of abatement of any proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act arises. 20. Lastly, a question was raised as to what would happen if consolidation proceedings having started the objector in proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act even if allowed opportunity to file a suit within the permissible period, cannot approach the revenue court, nor a suit can be field before the consolidation authorities due to obvious nature of such proceedings, within the period allowed. We can only say that the abatement is not a matter of convenience but is strict compliance of the statutory provisions, whether the period allowed to file a suit will count from the the date it becomes possible to the objector to file a declaratory suit, or the revenue court may decide to stay the proceedings, or in view of decisions in the consolidation proceedings the need of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act may no longer remain, are matters for consideration of the concerned authorities but it is certain that such consideration cannot result into abatement under Section 5(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, which precisely is the question before us. 21. From the above discussion the answer to the question can be given and is 'No'. 22. The reference with answer may now be returned to the Member having jurisdiction, for further action.