JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member (J.) - The present revision was filed by the plaintiff Sri Janardan Upadhyay against respondent Kesho Rai, Lalta Rai State of U.P. and Municipal Board Azamgarh through Collector. During the pendency of the case Respondent No. 1 and 2 Sarvasri Kesho Rai and Lalta Rai died and their heirs were substituted in their places. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Janardan, Ram Narain & Sita Ram s/o Prabhakar Upadhyay on 1-9-78 filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Regarding plot No. 347-M/421 area - 233 acres towards south situated in village Nibhi Tappa Harbanspur Pargana Nizamabad District Azamgarh, against the defendants Kesho Rai, Lalta Rai, Gaon Sabha Nibi through Pradhan and U.P Government through Collector. By notification the land in suit was included within the limit of Municipal Board Azamgarh with effect from 25-9-75. On 22-4-81 the village in suit was notified under Section 4-A (2) of U.P. Consolidation Act and the consolidation proceedings started in the village. The trial court vide its order dated 17-10-81 abated the suit under Section 5 (2)(a) of U.P.C.H. Act. The revision filed against this order was dismissed by Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur on 29-4-82, against which order the present revision was filed in this court. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. While the learned counsel for the Revisionist argued that the suit should not have been abated as land in suit is now within the Municiple limit. He relied on 1990 R.D. 115 and 1988 R.D. 309. The learned counsel for the respondent justified the order of the learned trial court. 4. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts that the land in suit was included in Municiple Board, Azamgarh with effect from 25-9-75 and that notification under Section 4-A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act had taken place on 22-4-81. It was village before 25-9-75. 5. The question to be decided is whether the U.P. Consideration of Holdings Act will apply to the area which was village on 7th July, 1949 and will continue to be applied irrespective of the fact whether it was included subsequently into Municipal Board, Town Area etc. or it will cease to apply from the date area of the village was included in Municipal Board etc. Let us examine the position. 6. or it will cease to apply from the date area of the village was included in Municipal Board etc. Let us examine the position. 6. In Section 3 (2-A) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 'Consolidation area' is defined as under :- "Section 3 (2-A) 'Consolidation area' means the area, in respect of which a notification under Section 4 has been issued, except such portions thereof to which the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 do not apply". 7. U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act applies to the following land as provided under Section 1 (2) of the Act which is as under :- "Section 1 (2) It extends to the whole of the Uttar Pradesh except the areas which, on the 7th day of July, 1949, were included in a Municipality or a notified area under the provisions of the United Provinces Municipalities Act, 1916 (U.P. Act 11 of 1916) on a cantonment under the provisions of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (U.P. Act 11 of 1924) or a Town Area under the provisions of the United Provinces Town Area Act, 1914 (U.P. Act 1 of 1914): Provided that in relation to areas included in the Rampur Municipality, this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words and figures 7th day of July, 1949 the words and figures 31st day of July, 1949, were substituted therein : Provided further that there any area which on July 7, 1949, was included in a Municipality, Notified Area, Cantonment or Town Area, cease to be so included therein at any time after that date and no notification has been made in respect thereto under Section 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 - (i) in case it has ceased to be so included at any time before June 29, 1971, this Act shall extend to such area from June 29, 1971, and (ii) in any other case, this Act shall extend to such area from the date on which the area ceases to be so included." 8. The bare reading of the above section indicates that U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will apply to the areas which were not included in a Municipal Board, notified Area, Cantonment or Town Area on 7th July, 1949. The bare reading of the above section indicates that U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will apply to the areas which were not included in a Municipal Board, notified Area, Cantonment or Town Area on 7th July, 1949. After notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act this areas becomes consolidation area to which U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act applies. 9. The bare reading of this section further shows that if an area subsequently ceases to be part of Municipal Board etc. it will be governed by U.P.Z.A & L.R. Act. There is no provision vice-versa, in the absence of which provision it can not be held that if an area governed by U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is included subsequently in Municipal Board etc., U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will not apply. The legal position is that in spite of the fact that this area was included subsequently in Municipal Board etc., U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act will continue to be applied and this area will be covered by the definition of Consolidation area after notification of Section 4 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 10. I am further supported in my view by the provision of Section 117 of U.P.Z.A & L R. Act, under which the land vested in Gaon Sabha may be devested from the Gaon Sabha and may be vested in local authority Nager Mahapalika etc who may exercise functions duties and powers of Gaon Sabha or L.M.C. in respect of such area. 11. This matter came before Honble High Court in 1974. In Awatar Krishna v. Gaon Sabha, 1974 R.D. (Supp) 252 the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.S.P Singh held that though disputed area was included in Municipality in 1977 the provision of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will continue to apply. The same view was taken by Honble Mr. Justice N.D. Ojha in Narendra Pratap Shah v. Indra Mishra, 1984 ALJ 20. The deciding factor was the material date 7th July, 1949. 12. In Harbans Bahadur v. State, 1980 AWC 252 the question was whether Consolidation of Holdings Act will apply to the areas covered by U.P. Urban Areas Z.A. & L.R. Act. The Honble Mr. Justice R.K. Sahai of Allahabad High Court (As he then was) held that U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will not apply to the areas covered by U.P. Urban area Z.A. & L.R. Act and he quashed the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Honble Mr. Justice R.K. Sahai of Allahabad High Court (As he then was) held that U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will not apply to the areas covered by U.P. Urban area Z.A. & L.R. Act and he quashed the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. This view was upheld by the Division Bench in Ram Lal v. D.D.C., Hamirpur, 1988 R.D. 309 where it was held that in spite of provision of Section 64 of Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition Act, Consolidation Act will not apply. This question was not before this bench whether the area which was covered by U.P.Z.A., & L.R. Act, 1959 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951) will cease to be governed by the Act if included subsequent to 7th July, 1949 in Municipality, Town Areas etc. The Bench observed that : "It may be mentioned here that the Consolidation Act no where mentioned that the Act would be applicable to the area where Urban Area Act would be applicable, as it has done in respect of areas governed by the Zamindari Act". 13. Only authority which supports the view of the revisionist is Maharaj Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1990 R.D. 115 where the land was included subsequent to 7th July, 1949 in Municipal Board, Kashipur on 30-7-77, consolidation proceedings were quashed. Significance of the material date 7th July, 1949 was not brought to the notice of the court and as such the court did not discuss it. The previous single judge rulings Awatar Krishna v. Gaon Sahab Bhogpur, 1974 R.D.(Suppl) 252 and Narendra Pratap Shah v. Indra Mishra, 1984 ALJ 20 were neither brought to the notice of Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Singh nor these rulings were discussed in the judgment. If this view of the Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Singh is accepted, use of date 7th July, 1949 in Section 1 (2) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act becomes meaningless and the absence of the vice versa provisions in this very section will also be meaningless. In fact this view of the Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Singh is not to be followed being per incuriam, being against specific provisions of law and against the previous two rulings of the single judges of the same High Court as referred above. 14. In fact this view of the Honble Mr. Justice R.P. Singh is not to be followed being per incuriam, being against specific provisions of law and against the previous two rulings of the single judges of the same High Court as referred above. 14. The doctrine of per incuriam' has been approved by the Supreme Court in Jai Sri v. Raj Diwan, AIR 1962 S.C. 83 (at page 98). Salmond has stated that "A precedent is not binding if it was rendered in ignorance of a statute. As examples of per incuriam' judgments, Salmond cited a case where the court knew a statute but did not refer to the precise terms of the Statute, as well as to a case where the court knew of the statute but failed to appreciate the relevance to the matter in hand. (Salmond on jurisprudence 12th Edition, page 150). In Sardari Lal Gupta v. Sri Krishna Agarwal, AIR 1984 P & H 439 a division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a precedent is not binding, if was rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of law. It further observed regarding the application of the rule of per incuriam' that the rule applies even though the earlier court knew of the statute in question, but it did not refer to and had not presented to its mind the precise terms of the statutes. 15. The result is that I hold that if an area governed by U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act is included in Municipality Town area, Notified area or Cantonment etc. subsequent to 7th July, 1949 it will continue to be governed by U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and will be consolidation area after notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act and U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act will apply to such area. 16. Thus order passed by the Trial Court is the correct order. There is no force in the present revision which is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.