- (1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) DISPUTE relates to plot No. 288 situate in village Nigdilpur, Pargana Nawabganj, District Allahabad which was recorded in the name of Anand Behari Maharaj Virajman Mandir trust through its 'sarwarakar'. Trust is stated to be a private trust. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in dispute from one Vishwambhar Narayan who is stated to have been authorised by the trust for disposal of the property in dispute by the management of the Trust to secure money for maintenance of Mandir. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 12 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the 'act'), for mutation of his name which was allowed by Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 30th April, 1991. The village came to be denotified under Section 52 of the Act on 8. 7. 2004. Gaon Sabha/ respondent No. 5 filed a time barred appeal challenging the order dated 30th April, 1991 on 5th October, 2006. Petitioner filed an objection regarding maintainability of the appeal after denotification under Section 52 of the Act. Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 25th June, 2007 overruled the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner holding that even after de- notification under Section 52 of the Act the appeal was maintainable. The petitioner went up in revsion. Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 18th July, 2007 dismissed the same. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that appeal filed by Gaon Sabha after de- notification of consolidation operation under Section 52 of the Act was not at all maintainable and his preliminary objection has wrongly been overruled. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the decisions of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Raj Bahadur Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and others, 1974 RD (Suppl) 181 and Nanhki v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and others, 1994 RD 264 and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Ram. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, 1989 RD 281. In so far as the cases of Hari Ram (supra), and Nanhki (supra) are concerned, the same have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as in the said two cases the question before the Court was whether Deputy Director of Consolidation could have entertained and decided reference proceedings in exercise of powers conferred by Section 48 (3) of the Act even after issuance of the notification under Section 52 of the Act.
(3.) THE question for consideration in this case is whether an appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer could be filed, entertained and proceeded with even after notification under Section 52 of the Act has been issued. It is well-settled that institution of a suit or proceedings carries with it the implication that all rights of appeal then In force remain preserved with the parties thereto till the proceedings are finally decided and that right of appeal is a vested right which accrues to the litigant from the date the Us commenced. Reference may be made to the following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Garikapati v. Subbaih Choudhary, AIR 1957 SC 540. "legal persuit of a remedy, suit appeal and second appeal are really but steps in a series of proceedings all connected by an intrinsic entity and are to be regarded as one legal proceeding and that the right of appeal was not a mere matter of procedure but was a substantive right. ";