JUDGMENT Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. Civil Misc. Substitution Application No.5 of 2023. Substitution Application is allowed. Let legal heirs of respondent no.8 may be substituted as respondent nos.8/1, 8/2, 8/3, 8/4, 8/5, 8/6 and 8/7 in the array of parties during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition. Heard Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri R.C.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation. 3. First found of litigation commenced in the year 2006 when present petitioners approached this Court by way of fling Writ B No.45740 of 2006 challenging the orders passed under Section 9-A (2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 hereinafter called the "Act, 1953." 4. The aforesaid writ petition kept pending for many years before this Court and finally by a judgment delivered on 4.4.2022, writ petition was allowed whereby the orders passed in the aforesaid proceedings were quashed and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. In pursuance of above order, Deputy Director of Consolidation heard the parties and passed the impugned order. 6. The authority has considered the factual and legal aspect of the case and taking note of notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953 on 6.2.2013 in regard to the land in dispute when the writ petition was pending, therefore, held that the proceedings shall be abated. 7. The aforesaid order is under challenge before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court has set-aside the order passed under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 and specific direction was passed that a fresh order shall be passed after considering the rival submissions of parties and the observations made in the judgment. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that an application was filed in the earlier proceedings that during the pendency of writ petition, a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act 1953 was already notified. However, it appears that either it was not taken note by the Co-ordinate Bench or the counsel appearing on behalf of rival parties failed to bring into the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. However, it appears that either it was not taken note by the Co-ordinate Bench or the counsel appearing on behalf of rival parties failed to bring into the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench. However, he fairly submits that apparently there is no illegality in the impugned order and after the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act 1953 was issued, the proceedings pending shall abate in terms of the said provision. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in case a judgment has been passed by this Court with specific direction, same ought to have been followed in its letter and spirit. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of contesting respondents submits that Co-ordinate Bench while remanding the matter back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation has specifically directed the authority concerned to decide the same in accordance with law, therefore, when it was brought on record before the Deputy Director of Consolidation that a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act 1953 has already been issued way back on 6.2.2013, the Authority has rightly abated the proceedings. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon a judgment passed by this Court in Writ-B No.40642 of 2016, Rama Shankar Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors (decided on 15.11.2016) and referred following paragraph: "Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953 provides that on issuance of a notification under Section 6 (1), the unit shall cease to be under consolidation operations from the date of notification itself. It, therefore, necessarily follows that once the unit has ceased to be under consolidation operations, the consolidation courts that were exercising jurisdiction to decide disputes, cease to have jurisdiction. As a consequence, pending proceedings must abate, as the court where they are pending, have lost their jurisdiction to adjudicate. This and this alone, emerges from a bare reading of Section 6 (2) of the Act, 1953, which provides that the consequence of issuance of a notification under Section 6 (1), cancelling consolidation operations. Further, only the orders passed by the consolidation courts, which have attained finality before the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953, are saved. This and this alone, emerges from a bare reading of Section 6 (2) of the Act, 1953, which provides that the consequence of issuance of a notification under Section 6 (1), cancelling consolidation operations. Further, only the orders passed by the consolidation courts, which have attained finality before the notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953, are saved. Any dispute, which has not attained finality must, as noticed above, necessarily abate and status quo ante prevailing on the date, the unit was brought under consolidation operations, must be restored, be it on the spot or in the Revenue records." 13. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 14. In the first round of litigation, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the orders passed in the proceedings initiated on behalf of petitioners under Section 9-A (2) of the Act, 1953 and vide judgment and order dated 4.4.2022, matter was remanded back to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. 15. The fact that during the pendency of said writ petition a notification under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953 was published on 6.2.2013 was not brought into the notice of Co-ordinate Bench. 16. On remand, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has considered the case and perused the records also and since it was brought into the notice of said authority about the notification published under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953 and therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed the order in terms of the said provision to abate the proceedings. 17. The submission of learned counsel for petitioners that since a direction was passed by this Court and the same ought to have been followed in its letter and spirit, has no legal basis since an important factor which ought to have been brought on record by learned counsel for parties before the co-ordinate Bench was not undertaken and as held in Rama Shankar Singh (supra) as well as from bare perusal of the contents of Section 6 of the Act, of 1953, the consequence followed after the notification was issued under the aforesaid section that consolidation operation seized from the date of publication of notification issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1953. 18. The aforesaid legal proposition has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 19. 18. The aforesaid legal proposition has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 19. The outcome of above discussion is that since the Deputy Director of Consolidation has taken note of the consequence of publication of notification issued under Section 6 (1) of the Act, 1953, therefore, he has rightly held that the proceedings in question shall be abated. 20. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners made a request that in case the the petitioners have any other remedy available under law and if advised, petitioners may opt the same and the observations made in the impugned order may not come in their way, therefore, it is clarified that if legally permissible remedy is available to petitioners and if he opts the same, the proceedings shall be decided on the basis of its own merit expeditiously. 21. There is no illegality in the impugned order. 22. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.