JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This writ petition is directed against an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing objections of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the two plots in dispute and holding that they are the sirdars of those plots. 2. The Bench hearing this petition at the admission stage was of the opinion that this case involved reconsideration of a Division Bench of this Court in Vidya Bhushan v. Parag and Ors. 1964 AWR 371 and directed that it may be heard by a larger Bench at the final hearing. That is how this case has come to this Bench for hearing. We are of opinion that in view of the facts of this case the point decided in Vidya Bhushan's case does not arise and that Vidya Bhushan's case is distinguishable. In Vidya Bhushan's case the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood in 1957, was up for consideration. It was held that under the provisions then prevailing an objection u/s 12 of that Act could be filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer alone and that if an objection is filed before the Consolidation Officer and proceeded with by him, the proceedings were without jurisdiction. In that case the consolidation Officer had not sent the objection to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for following the procedure prescribed by the Act, namely, to obtain the views of the Land Managing Committee and report. In the instant case, Respondents 4 and 5 filed objections on 15th June 1962 along with an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The Consolidation Officer forwarded it to the Assistant Consolidation Officer for report. The Assistant Consolidation Officer made a report on 6th July 1962 and on the basis of that report the objection was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 12th July, 1962. Later on in appeal, the delay in filing the objection was condoned and the matter was remanded for decision on merits. 3. It is thus clear that in the present case the objection was initially filed before the Consolidation Officer but it was forthwith transmitted to the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The objection could, therefore, be treated as having been really filed on the date when it reached the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was barred by time; but the delay in filing it having been condoned, no further defect remained. The objection could, therefore, be treated as having been really filed on the date when it reached the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It was barred by time; but the delay in filing it having been condoned, no further defect remained. Merely because it had initially been filed before the Consolidation Officer could not be material to the further proceedings. In the present case the Consolidation Officer proceeded to deal with the objection after he had received it back along with the report of the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The prevailing provisions of the Act with respect to the entertainment of an objection were satisfied and as such the decision in Vidya Bhushan's case is distinguishable on facts. 4. On the merits, it has been urged that the Petitioner has been found to have been in possession for more than six years and as such he acquired the status of a sirdar u/s 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It has also been submitted that the Petitioner was in cultivatory possession in 1359 fasli and that he acquired adhivasi rights under the U.P. Supplementary Act XX of 1952. The last contention of the learned Counsel was that since the Respondents sub-let the plots to the Petitioner, their interest ceased by virtue of Section 190(cc) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 5. In our opinion, none of these contentions have any force in view of the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has found that Respondents 4 and 5 were admittedly the tenants of the plots and that the Petitioner was working as a Sajhi with them. On this finding the Petitioner cannot acquire any rights by adverse possession, because a Sajhi is merely a licencee. He will also not get any right by virtue of having cultivated the plots in 1359 fasli because a Sajhi, that is to say, a person who participates in cultivation, doss not acquire any rights in view of the Explanation appended to Section 3 of the U.P. Supplementary Act XX of 1952. Engrafting a Sajhi doss not entail subletting of the Land and as such Respondents 4 and 5 cannot be held to have lost their title u/s 190(cc). 6. Thus all the submissions advanced for the Petitioner are devoid of merits, with the result that the petition fails and is dismissed with casts.