Ceiling proceedings may continue during consolidation operations where the statute excludes them from the bar on land-right adjudication.

Proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are not stayed merely because consolidation proceedings are pending under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Although consolidation law generally abates and bars fresh proceedings concerning declaration or adjudication of rights in land after a Section 4(2) notification, the statutory Explanation to Section 5(2) excludes ceiling proceedings from that category. That legal fiction was treated as extending to the connected Section 49 bar because both provisions form part of the same scheme. Section 10 CPC was held inapplicable, and the statutory overriding effect of the Ceiling Act prevented consolidation pendency from defeating ceiling proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act are maintainable and can continue during the pendency of consolidation proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

Analysis: The Consolidation Act contains a scheme under which, after a notification under Section 4(2), pending proceedings relating to declaration or adjudication of rights in land abate under Section 5(2)(a), and fresh proceedings on the same subject are barred by Section 49. Proceedings under the Ceiling Act were held to be proceedings for declaration and adjudication of rights in land, but the Legislature inserted an Explanation to Section 5(2) declaring that such proceedings shall not be deemed to be proceedings in respect of declaration of rights or interest in any land. The Explanation, though expressed to apply for the purposes of Section 5(2), was treated as creating a legal fiction that must carry its necessary consequences into the connected bar under Section 49, because Sections 5 and 49 are pari materia and integral parts of the same scheme. The Court further held that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply, that comity of courts could not override the statutory scheme, and that the Ceiling Act itself contains overriding provisions and a bar against prior findings operating as res judicata.

Conclusion: Ceiling proceedings are not barred or stayed merely because consolidation proceedings are pending, and they may continue notwithstanding the consolidation operations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory Explanation creates a legal fiction excluding a class of proceedings from the bar against adjudication of rights in land, the fiction extends to the allied and pari materia provision forming part of the same legislative scheme, unless expressly excluded.

---