JUDGMENT Mubarak Hasan, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated March 18, 1969 passed by Additional Judge, Garakhpur in appeal against the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1967 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Azamgarh in a case under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Sahdeo and others filed suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act alleging that the land in suit was acquired by the common an ancestor of the parties and consequently they were co-Sirdars of the disputed land along with the defendants-plaintiffs prayed for a declaration that they were co-Sirdars of the land in suit along with the defendants. The defendants filed written statement denying the right, title and possession of the plaintiffs over the disputed land. They pleaded that they were sole Sirdars of the land in suit. They also pleaded that they were sole Sirdars of the land in suit. They also pleaded that the suit was barred under section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 3. On January 30, 1967, the trial court decreed the suit for plot Nos. 46 and 115 but dismissed the suit for the remaining plots. 4. On March 13, 1939, the Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1967 passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit holdings that it was barred under sections 27 and 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 5. The present 2nd appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Consolidation Officer passed the order dated April 10, 1957 in favour of the plaintiffs in proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He contended that the right and title of the plaintiffs having been finally determined by the Consolidation Officer, the defence of the defendants was barred and not the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that in C.H. 23 and 25 the names of the defendants only were recorded over the land in dispute. He further argued that the plaintiffs were at liberty to file objection at the time of allotment of Chak but they lid not do so and therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer lost its sanctity. He further argued that the plaintiffs were at liberty to file objection at the time of allotment of Chak but they lid not do so and therefore, the order passed by the Consolidation Officer lost its sanctity. He contended that the allotment of Chak in favour of the defendants became final and conclusive between the parties and could not now be challenged. He further contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He placed reliance on the case Smt. Natho v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Allahabad and others 1966 R.D. 170 in which it was held that:- "Once the proceedings up to the stage of Section 22 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act have been completed and the statement of proposals under section 23 have been confirmed the statement of proposals becomes final and the effect of finality is that all adjudications already made up to that date became final." He also placed reliance on the case Sheo Raj Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Lucknow in Camp at Hardoi and others 1967 R.D. 1 in which it was held that: "Proceedings under Sections 9 to 12 and the proceedings under section 20 onwards constitute two different and independent stages in the Consolidation operations. This would also appear from the terms of section 47 of U.P. Act VIII of 1963. The publication of statement of proposals under sections 20 marks a stage and the two different stages are dealt with clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 47 of U.P. Act VIII of 1963. Hence where a person after having filed an objection under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (or under section) neglects to file an objection at the stage of section 20 or the allotment of chaks, he will lose all advantages that might be secured to him by any proceedings or continuation of any proceeding or contention of any proceeding under Section 9 to 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act." He also placed reliance on the case Smt. Sunder Pala v. Shambhu Singh and others 1967 R.D. 5, 6 in which it was held under:- Proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings Act under Section 20 etc. raised questions quite apart from those determined under section 9 and the following sections of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. raised questions quite apart from those determined under section 9 and the following sections of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Under section 9 and the following section rights are determined. Thereafter the question of allotment of Chaks is taken up on the basis of the decisions arrived at. The allotment of Chaks transfer possession and fresh rights accrue to the persons to whom Chaks have been allotted Thus if a person has not been careful to raise an objection under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, a latter establishment of his rights cannot dislodge the rights that have accrued to the new Chak holder under section 20." 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly the names of the defendants were recorded over the land in dispute in C.H. 23 and C.H. 25. The plaintiffs did not file any objection at the stage of Sections 20 of the allotment of Chaks. They therefore, lost all advantage that might have accrued to them in proceedings under section 9 to 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Entries in C.H. 23 and 25 in favour of the defendants become final and conclusive between the parties and cannot now be challenged. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred under section 49 of the U.P. Act. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the respondents apply in all fours to the present case. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner is correct and does not suffer from any illegality. Second appeal has no force. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs.