JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - This writ is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Pratapgarh dated March 4, 1968 (Annexure 3) by which order he has held that the petitioner has no right in the land in dispute (Khata No. 10-A) and that the same was Parti land and it vested in the Gram Sabha. By that very order he had also given a finding in respect of Khata No. 10-B which was never in dispute. A review application was, therefore made before him and he modified his order on September 17, 1968. The dispute now relates to Khata No. 10-A only. The petitioner was recorded as grove holder in respect of this Khata since 1955. In the basic year also his name was recorded over this land Objections were filed under Section 9 by opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8. The Consolidation Officer decided the matter in favour of the petitioner. On appeal the Settlement Officer Consolidation also held in favour of the petitioner. Opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8 had then filed a revision before the Deputy Director who passed the impugned order. He held that neither the petitioner nor opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8 had any right in that land and that it vested in the Gram Sabha. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted beyond his jurisdiction in passing this order as the Gram Sabha had never raised any objection under Section 9 nor any objection had been raised by the Gram Sabha before the Deputy Director and as such the entry in the basic year had become final against the Gram Sabha under Section 11-A of the Act. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Subba v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. Lucknow Camp at Kheri and others, 1969 R.D. 30. That authority applied on all fours to the facts of the present case. The learned Standing Counsel somehow had an impression that this decision had been set aside in special appeal. The record of special appeal No. 37 of 1969 decided on February 10, 1969 was sent for. That appeal was dismissed summarily and this decision was upheld. There is thus now a Division Bench authority in favour of the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing Counsel somehow had an impression that this decision had been set aside in special appeal. The record of special appeal No. 37 of 1969 decided on February 10, 1969 was sent for. That appeal was dismissed summarily and this decision was upheld. There is thus now a Division Bench authority in favour of the petitioner. 3. Learned Standing Counsel placed reliance on another Division Bench un-reported case, Deputy Director of Consolidation and others v. Gur Dayal and another, Special Appeal No. 10 of 1969 decided on January 3, 1969. In that case it was decided on January 3, 1969. In that no doubt held that under Section 48 Deputy Director can interfere suo motu with any order of the subordinate authority. From that judgment it does not appear that the name of any of the parties in that case had been mutated in place of the decease ed tenure-holder. The learned Judges, therefore, were not called upon to consider the effect of Section 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in that case, which has been considered in the Subba's case, 1969 R.D. 30. Under Section 11-A there is a complete bar on objection which was not taken under Section 9. I also respectfully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in that case. Moreover it was upheld by the Division Bench. There is thus no doubt that the Deputy Director has acted beyond his jurisdiction. 4. In this writ petition opposite parties Nos. 5 to 8 are represented by their counsel Sri S.B. Pandey, but counter affidavit was filed only on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4. In that counter affidavit main objection taken was that there has been latches in filing the writ petition. Those latches having been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner that a review application had been filed before the Deputy Director and that was even allowed partly. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Deputy Director on merits also and has argued that even on the finding of the Deputy Director that the name of the petitioner was recorded as grove-holder in 1955, the petitioner would have perfected his title under Section 210 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as no suit was filed by Gram Sabha within three years under Section 209 of that Act. There appears to be force in this argument. In case I was not satisfied on the other point, I would have considered the desirability of remanding the case to the Deputy Director for a clear finding on this point as no opportunity appears to have been given to the petitioner so far the case of Gram Sabha was concerned. However I am satisfied that the Deputy Director had no jurisdiction to give this finding in favour of a third party, that is, Gram Sabha whose right to raise any objection had been barred under Section 11-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. The order of the Deputy Director has got to be quashed. 6. The writ is accordingly allowed and the order of the Deputy Director is quashed. The petitioner shall get his costs of the writ petition against opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4 only.