JUDGMENT : RAJAN ROY, J. 1. Heard. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Maharajganj, District Raebareli dated 15.8.2016 by which he has opined that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 passed under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1953') does not survive after the notification published under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1953 cancelling the earlier notification under Section 4 thereof. 3. Considering the short point involved in this writ petition, which is as to whether the order of the Consolidation Officer passed on 17.3.2004 stands protected by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 6 even after the notification of cancellation under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1953 or not, there is no need to call for counter affidavit as the facts are not in dispute. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that during consolidation proceedings on an objection being filed in respect of the land in question the Consolidation Officer determined the rights, title and interests of the petitioners herein vide his order dated 17.3.2004. The said order was never appealed by any aggrieved person under Section 11(1) of the Act, 1953 nor any revision was filed against it under Section 48 of the said Act. Till date no such appellate or revisional proceedings have been undertaken. Accordingly, the said order of the Consolidation Officer attained finality. Therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 6, by which cessation of consolidation operations with effect from the date of cancellation under Section 6(1) has been made subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 which had attained finality is protected by the said provision and the rights of the petitioners thereunder also stands protected and the order of the S.D.M. to the contrary is not sustainable in law. In this regard he relies upon a decision rendered by a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (25) LCD 844. 5. In this regard he relies upon a decision rendered by a Single Bench judgment of this Court reported in 2007 (25) LCD 844. 5. Sri M.E Khan, Additional Chief Standing Counsel fairly submits that in so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, no doubt the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 stands protected under sub Section (2) of Section 6, but, as a general proposition, this protection would not be available except in terms of the pronouncement referred hereinabove, specially paragraph 4 thereof, meaning thereby, unless the order had attained finality. 6. Paragraph 4 of the judgment in Madan Shah and others vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation reported in 2007 (25) LCD 844 reads as under:- "4. While sub-section (1) of Section deals with the power of the State Government to cancel the notification under Section 4 at any time sub-section (2) to Section 6 deals with the effect a notification under Section 6(1) would have upon the consolidation proceedings. It provides that the area shall cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation but this is subject to any final orders relating to correction of land records. The question which arises is whether the order passed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation in a revision arising out of an objection under Section 9 is a final order relating to correction of land records. The words "orders relating to correction of land records" as used in Section 6(2) are wide and would also cover orders passed in title disputes under Section 9-A because these orders can direct change of basic year entries. It is therefore necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the consolidation of Holdings Act which confer finality upon orders passed in title disputes in the consolidations proceedings. An order passed under Section 9-A deciding an objection relating to title is appealable under Section 11. Sub-section (1) of Section 11 provides that the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation except as otherwise provided shall be final. A revision lies against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act. It is thus clear that unless a revision is filed the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed under subsection (1) of Section 11 shall be final. If a revision is filed the order of the Dy. A revision lies against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the Dy. Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the Act. It is thus clear that unless a revision is filed the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation passed under subsection (1) of Section 11 shall be final. If a revision is filed the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation shall be final. The effect of the notification under subsection (1) of Section 6 envisaged in sub-section (2) is that the consolidation operations shall cease in the village subject to the decision of the appeal or where a revision has been preferred to the order in the revision. If the legislature intended that all orders passed before issuance of the notification under Section 6 be set at naught it would not have specified in sub-section (2) that the consolidation operations shall cease in the area from the date of cancellation nor made the ceasure, subject to final orders relating to correction of records passed before the date of the notification. When a notification under Section 4(2) is published proceedings for correction of records and a suit or proceeding in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land shall on an order being passed by the Court where it is pending stand abated. The effect of the 2nd proviso of sub-section 2 of Section 5 is that on the issuance of notification under subsection (1) of Section 6 an order of abatement shall stand vacated and the proceedings will revive. Reading this proviso with Section 6(2) it appears that the revival of the proceedings contemplated is in cases where final orders have not been passed. In cases where final orders have been passed subsection (2) of Section 6 itself provides that the ceasure of the consolidation operations will be subject to such final orders. Sub sections(1) and (2) of Section 6 of the Second Proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 5 have to be read together to determine their effect. Thus, read it is clear that it is only where final orders relating to correction of land records have not been passed that the proceedings of a pending suit in which an order of abatement had been passed shall stand revived. Thus, read it is clear that it is only where final orders relating to correction of land records have not been passed that the proceedings of a pending suit in which an order of abatement had been passed shall stand revived. In cases where a final order relating to correction of land records has been passed the final order would not be affected by the notification under Section 6(1) and provisions of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would become applicable. The decision in Jiwan Singh's case is distinguishable. The question there involved was about the stage when a notification under Section 6(1) can be issued and not about the effect the notification would have upon final orders in the title proceedings. That apart, a writ petition is not a continuity of the consolidation proceedings. The ceasure of the consolidation operations therefore does not affect the maintainability of the writ petition against a final order in a title dispute and such a petition does not become infructuous on issuance of the notification under Section 6. The order of the 7. Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revision had been passed long before the issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. Issuance of the notification under sub-section (1) therefore has no effect upon the fate of the writ petition." 8. Section 6 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 reads as under :- "6. Cancellation of notification under Section 4 – (1) It shall be lawful for the State Government at any time to cancel the made under Section 4 in respect of the whole or any part of the area specified therein. (2) Where a notification has been cancelled in respect of any unit under sub-section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, cease to be under consolidation operations with effect from the date of the cancellation." 9. It is not in doubt that the State Government retains the power under Section 6(1) to cancel the notification issued by it earlier under Section 4. However, the effect of such cancellation has been laid down by the legislature in sub section (2) of Section 6. It is not in doubt that the State Government retains the power under Section 6(1) to cancel the notification issued by it earlier under Section 4. However, the effect of such cancellation has been laid down by the legislature in sub section (2) of Section 6. Where the notification has been cancelled in respect of any unit in sub section (1), such area shall, subject to the final orders relating to the correction of land records, if any, passed on or before the date of such cancellation, ceases to be under consolidation operation with effect from the date of the cancellation. Thus, the cancellation shall not be effective so far as the final orders relating to the correction of land records passed on or before the date of such cancellation, i.e. during the consolidation proceedings. The term 'final orders' relating to the correction of land records would include the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2), by virtue thereof, ultimately the records would be corrected as regards the basic year entries as has also been observed by this Court in the aforesaid judgment in Madan Shah’s case (supra) and the said words are of wide import. It is not in dispute that the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.3.2004 was not challenged in appeal under Section 11(1) nor by way of a revision under Section 48. There is no material on record to show otherwise. As per the scheme of the Act 1953 against a decision under Section 9-A(2) taken by Consolidation Officer an appeal lies under Section 11(1). Needless to say that this appeal would be a continuation of the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer which is in the nature of a trial wherein the rights and title of the parties are declared. Section 11(1) categorically provides that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation passed in appeal as otherwise provided by or under this Act shall be final and not be questioned in any Court of law under the scheme of the Act, 1953. Against the aforesaid orders passed under Section 9-A(2) and Section 11(1), a revision is maintainable before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 thereof. Against the aforesaid orders passed under Section 9-A(2) and Section 11(1), a revision is maintainable before the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 thereof. Thus, in a given situation where against an order passed under Section 9-A(2) or similar provisions of the Act, 1953 where appeals or revisions are prescribed if such appeal or revision has been preferred and is pending on the date of notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, 1953, then, it cannot be said that the initial orders passed by the Consolidation Officer had attained finality, therefore, on account of pendency of such appeals or revisions, the orders passed by such authorities would not be protected under Section 6(2), however, in cases, such as the present one, where no appeal or revision was filed or it was filed but decided, such orders would be protected in terms of the appellate or revisional orders passed therein. 10. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act 1953 was issued on 27.10.1990, whereas the cancellation notification under Section 6(1) of the Act 1953 was issued on 10.10.2005. Therefore, the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was passed on 17.3.2004, was passed prior to the date of notification under Section 6(1). 11. Furthermore, if the initial order had been passed within 21 days of the publication of notification under Section 6(1), then the aggrieved parties would have a right of appeal under Section 11(1) within 21 days as prescribed therein and thereafter, a further right of revision under Section 48, and in such an eventuality, the original order passed by the Consolidation Officer would not be treated to have attained finality as it cannot be said that the right of appeal or revision under the Act,1953 itself would be taken away, as doing so, would result in a situation where the initial order even if illegal will be sustained or perpetuated, therefore, the order of the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) cannot be treated as final order till expiry of 21 days prescribed under Section 11(1) for filing the appeal. On passing such an order under Section9-A(2), the right of appeal automatically accrues in favour of the aggrieved person under Section 11 (1) and likewise the right of revision under Section 48, therefore, such vested rights cannot be said to have been taken away by the notification under Section 6(1) on the same analogy, as, sometimes appeals and revisions are filed supported by application under Section 5 of Limitation Act even after notification under section 52 of the Act, 1953. 12. In view of the above discussion, the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate cannot be sustained, the same is, accordingly, quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the order dated 17.3.2004 passed by the Consolidation Officer as per law. 13. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.