JUDGMENT J.N. DUBEY, J. 1. THE sole point for determination in this writ petition is whether after notification of the village under section 4-A (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act orders passed in the earlier consolidation proceedings can be given effect to in the revenue records under section 52 (2) without filing a regular objection under section 9-A (2). 2. IT appears that the land in dispute originally belonged to one Smt. Anto who executed three separate lease deeds on 7-6-1944 for five years duration-one in favour of Bhuley respondent no. 5, the other in favour of Rajjan grandfather of respondent no. 6 and the third in favour of Rumal father of respondents nos. 7 to 9. One Harbans claiming himself to be a reversioner filed Suit No. 139 of 1946 in the civil court against Smt. Anto which was decreed on 7-12-1946. Smt. Anto filed first appeal against the said decree which was allowed by the District Judge on 22-3-1949. Harbans filed second appeal in this court which was dismissed. He filed a complaint under section 145 Cr PC in which the land in dispute was attached on 20-9-1949. Subsequently a final order was passed under section 146 Cr PC on 27-3-1951. Meanwhile Smt. Anto executed a gift deed in favour of one Jai Chand and Vidya Dhar who applied for mutation of their names in the revenue records. Harbansh filed objection in the mutation proceedings which was allowed by the Nyaya Panchayat on 6-11-1951 and he was recorded in the revenue records in place of Smt. Anto. 3. SMT. Anto and others filed Suit No. 273 of 1952 against Harbansh in the court of Munsif which was dismissed. They filed first appeal which was allowed by the Civil Judge on 6-2-1956 and the plaint was returned for presentation to proper court. Thereafter they filed a suit in the revenue court but before it could be decided the village was notified under section 4 of the Act and as such the entire proceedings were abated under section 5 (2) of the Act on 11-8-1956. 4. BHULEY and others filed objections before the consolidation authorities claiming Sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the basis of the lease deeds executed by Smt. Anto in their favour on 7-6-1944. 4. BHULEY and others filed objections before the consolidation authorities claiming Sirdari rights in the land in dispute on the basis of the lease deeds executed by Smt. Anto in their favour on 7-6-1944. Smt. Anto died on 15-8-1957 and thereafter their objeccion was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on 24-8-1957 and they were directed to be recorded as sirdars of the land in dispute in place of Harbansh. Harbansh filed appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed on 16-1-1958. He filed revision which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 28-2-1958. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, however, taking suo moto action remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer with the direction that he should first determine the heirs of Smt. Anto and then decide the objection filed by BHULEY and others. When the matter went back to the Consolidation Officer a number of objections were filed before him-one by the petitioners claiming themselves to be sister's sons of husband of Smt. Anto, the other by one Vedpal claiming himself to be her son, the third by Harbansh claiming himself to be a reversioner, the fourth by BHULEY and others lessees claiming Sirdari rights in the land on the basis of the lease deeds executed by Smt. Anto in their favour on 7-6-1944 and the fifth by Jaichand and Vedpal claiming rights in the land on the basis of gift deed executed by her. On the other hand, the Gaon Sabha claimed that the land vested in it after the death of Smt. Anto. The Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 30-7-1958 sent the matter to the Civil Judge for referring it to the Arbitrator. The Civil Judge after framing necessary issues referred the matter to the Arbitrator on 13-8-1958. The Arbitrator gave his award on 6-2-1964 which was accepted by the Civil Judge on 30-4-1966. The petitioner filed appeal no. 165 of 1966 to the District Judge which was allowed on 3-1-1967 on the finding that the reference to the civil court by the Consolidation Officer was invalid and the Consolidation Officer was directed to decide the dispute himself. The Consolidation Officer while allowing the objection of the petitioners dismissed the objections filed by other persons on 17-2-1971 and directed that the petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars of the land in dispute after expunging the name of Harbansh from the revenue records. The Consolidation Officer while allowing the objection of the petitioners dismissed the objections filed by other persons on 17-2-1971 and directed that the petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars of the land in dispute after expunging the name of Harbansh from the revenue records. Bhuley and others filed appeal no. 3 of 1971 which was dismissed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation on 13-12-1971. Thereafter, only respondent nos. 7 to 9 filed revision no. 1 of 1972 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was allowed on 4-4-1973 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The parties filed compromise before the Settlement Officer Consolidation on the basis of which the appeal was dismissed on 25-7-1973. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 moved an application before the Settlement Officer Consolidation for setting aside the order dated 25-7-1973 on the ground that they were not served with any notice after the order of remand which was dismissed on 2-5-1974. They filed revision no. 1 of 1974 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 6-1-1977 and the case was remanded to the Settlement Officer Consolidation for deciding afresh. 5. THE petitioners filed writ petition no. 572 of 1977 in this court which was allowed on 25-2-1982 and the order dated 6-1-1977 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was quashed. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 filed review application which was rejected by this court on 22-1-1986. THE operative portion of the order runs as under:- "In the result, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed but it is made clear that if the parties agitate their claims before the consolidation authority or court, their claim would be strictly examined in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation in the litigation giving rise to the present application. In the circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs." Respondent nos. 5 and 6 submitted to the orders dated 25-2-1982 and 22-1-1986 but the petitioners feeling aggrieved by certain observations made in the order passed on the review application filed SLP (C) No. 5589 of 1986 in the Supreme Court which was allowed on 1-9-1986 and this court was directed to decide the review application afresh. THE order of the Supreme Court is quoted below:- "Special leave granted. THE appeal is heard. THE order of the Supreme Court is quoted below:- "Special leave granted. THE appeal is heard. We set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd January, 1986 in Civil Review Application No. Nil of 1985 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 572 of 1977 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad. THE case is remanded to the High Court to hear the Review petition again. If the learned Single Judge feels that his earlier order passed in the Writ Petition dated February 25, 1982 should be reviewed, he may after setting aside the said order hear the parties afresh in the Writ Petition and dispose it of afresh. THE appeal is disposed of accordingly." 6. THIS Court vide its order dated 15-10-1986 again rejected the review application. The operative portion of the order runs as under: "To my mind the impugned judgment of mine does not suffer from any patent error of law nor calls for any interference by way of review. The review application is, therefore, dismissed." Village Deota in which the consolidation proceedings were closed by a notification under Section 52 (1) of the Act was again brought under consolidation operation by a notification under section 4-A of the Act on 16-5-1981. 7. THE petitioners moved an application to the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 12-3-1984 for giving effect to the aforesaid orders in the revenue records. On 31-3-1986, after two years of the moving of the application the Settlement Officer Consolidation directed the Consolidation Officer to decide the application of the petitioners as an objection under section -A (2) of the Act. Thereafter the petitioners made all possible efforts to get the aforesaid orders implemented in the revenue records but without success. On their failure to get justice inspite of running from pillar to post they have approached this Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and, therefore I propose to dispose of the writ petition finally at the admission stage. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 8. COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and, therefore I propose to dispose of the writ petition finally at the admission stage. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the orders passed in favour of the petitioners during the earlier consolidation proceedings can be given effect to in the revenue records under section 52 (2) of the Act and the Settlement Officer Consolidation committed an error apparent on the face of record in directing the Consolidation Officer to decide their application dated 12-3-1984 as an objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Act He further contended that the delay on the part of the consolidation authorities to give effect to the aforesaid orders in the revenue records for over five years has not only resulted in great harassment to the petitioners but has also given rise to a number of other criminal proceedings such as proceedings under sections 107/116 Cr PC, and under section 145 Cr PC. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents contended that after the notification of the village under section 4-A of the Act the Settlement Officer Consolidation has rightly ordered for deciding the said application of the petitioners as an objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act. 10. SECTION 4 of the Act empowers the State Government to bring any district or part thereof under consolidation operation while sections 7 to 10 authorise the consolidation authorities to prepare map, field book and current annual register; determine valuation and shares in the joint holdings ; prepare statement of principles; issue extracts from records and statements and publish relevant records and invite and decide objections of the tenure- holders; and prepare and maintain the revised annual register. Whereas section 11 makes provision for appeal, section 11-A provides that no question in respect of claims to land, plots, trees and well etc., relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under section 9, but has not been so raised, shall be raised, or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation proceedings. Whereas section 11 makes provision for appeal, section 11-A provides that no question in respect of claims to land, plots, trees and well etc., relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under section 9, but has not been so raised, shall be raised, or heard at any subsequent stage of the Consolidation proceedings. Under section 48 Director of Consolidation can revise any order passed by the subordinate authorities, whereas section 49 provides that no civil or revenue court shall entertain any suit or proceedings 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 the Act. The consolidation operation is ultimately closed by a notification under sub-section (1) of section 52 but the orders passed in the pending cases and in the writ petitions could be given effect to in the revenue records even thereafter in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) thereof. There is no' provision under the Act requiring a tenure-holder to initiate formal execution proceedings for implementation of the orders passed during consolidation operation. The orders are to be given effect to in the revenue records by the consolidation authorities on their own in view of the provisions of sections 10, 12-A, 27 and 52 (2) of the Act and rules framed thereunder. Therefore, in normal course it was the duty of the consolidation authorities to implement the orders passed in favour of the petitioners both before and after the closure of consolidation operation without drawing any formal execution proceedings. Now it has to be seen whether even after the village has again been brought under consolidation operation the orders passed during the earlier consolidation proceedings can be given effect to in the revenue records without filing a formal objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act. Now it has to be seen whether even after the village has again been brought under consolidation operation the orders passed during the earlier consolidation proceedings can be given effect to in the revenue records without filing a formal objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act. The answer to this question will depend on the interpretation of sections 4-A and 52 of the Act which run as under:- "4-A (1) Where the State Government is of the opinion that in the case of a district or part thereof in respect of which a notification has already been issued under section 52 it is expedient in public interest so to do, it may make a declaration in the gazette that such district or part thereof may again be brought under consolidation operation : Provided that no such declaration shall be issued within twenty years from the date of the notification referred to in the said section, but in special circumstances the State Government may, in public interest issue such declaration after ten years from the said date. (2) The provisions of this Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every notification issued under sub-section (1) as they apply to a notification under section 4." "52. Close of consolidation operations-(1) As soon as may be after fresh maps and records have been prepared under sub-section (1) of section 27, the State Government shall issue a notification in the Official Gazette that the consolidation operations have been closed in the unit and 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-section (2), 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 of proceedings pending under this Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (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. (3) Where the allotment or lease of any land made before the consolidation scheme becomes final under section 23, is cancelled by an order under sub-section (4) of section 198 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and such order becomes final, then notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of this Act, such order shall be given effect to any such authorities as may be prescribed, in the following manner and the consolidation operation shall, for that purpose, be deemed to have not closed, namely, (a) the value of the land which was the subject-matter of such allotment or lease shall first be ascertained in the manner prescribed: (b) the value referred to in clause (a) shall be deducted from the total value of land allotted to the tenure-holder concerned during consolidation proceedings: (c) the tenure-holder shall be entitled, during consolidation proceedings to land equivalent in valuation to the said land." 11. SUB-section (2) of section 4-A provides that the provisions of the Act shall mutatis mutandis apply to every notification issued under sub-section (1) as they apply to a notification under section 4 and, as such, all the objections relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings have to be raised under section 9-A (2). But the same cannot be said regarding the orders passed in the earlier consolidation operation, inasmuch as sub-section (1) of section 4-A provides that only that district or part thereof can be again brought under consolidation operation in respect of which a notification has already been issued in section 52. On the other hand, sub-section (2) of section 52 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (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 of proceedings pending under the Act on the date of issue of the notification under sub-section (1), shall be given effect to by such authorities as may be prescribed and that consolidation operation shall, for that purpose be deemed to have not closed. 12. IN view of sub-section (2) of section 52 the consolidation operation shall for the purpose of giving effect to the order passed in favour of the petitioners during the earlier consolidation proceedings be deemed to have not closed. 12. IN view of sub-section (2) of section 52 the consolidation operation shall for the purpose of giving effect to the order passed in favour of the petitioners during the earlier consolidation proceedings be deemed to have not closed. Since the village in question continues to be under consolidation operation for the purposes of giving effect to the orders passed in favour of the petitioners it cannot be deemed to have been brought under consolidation operation again under sub-section (1) of section 4-A of the Act for that purpose. This being so, sub-section (2) of section 4-A will also have no application to the present case and as such the petitioners are not required to file a fresh objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act. The parties have been litigating for the land in dispute for nearly a half century and if the application of the petitioners for implementation of the aforesaid orders is treated as an objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act it will give rise to a fresh litigation which may last for another quarter century. Moreover, the orders passed in the earlier consolidation proceedings will have binding effect on the parties in view of section 11 CPC and section 49 of the Act and, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by providing the losing party a second innings for the same cause of action. 13. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 29/31-3-1986 of the Settlement Officer Consolidation (Annexure-6) is quashed and the consolidation authorities are directed to give effect to the orders passed in the earlier consolidation proceedings in favour of the petitioners forthwith. IN the circumstances of case, I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.