JUDGMENT : R.S. Singh, J. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8-10-1971 by which the revision filed by Respondent No. 2 was allowed. 2. The only question for consideration in this writ petition is whether an objection u/s 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) filed before the Consolidation Officer is maintainable? 3. The objection filed by the Petitioners in this case was entertained by the Consolidation Officer and was allowed on merit. The appeal filed by the contesting Respondent against the order of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision filed by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the objection filed by the Petitioners before the Consolidation Officer and not before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer was not maintainable. 4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that in a disputed case, the Consolidation Officer is the proper authority to decide the claim of the parties and in any view of the case according to Section 44A of the Act, the Consolidation Officer, being superior to Asstt, Consolidation Officer is competent to entertain the objection u/s 9 of the Act. 5. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that according to Section 9A of the Act, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer is empowered to receive the objection and the Consolidation Officer has no jurisdiction under the provision of the Act to receive the objection. He further contended that Asstt. Consolidation ' Officer is not subordinate to Consolidation Officer. Thus the Consolidation Officer is not the superior authority according to Section 44A of the Act. Therefore, the Consolidation Officer is not competent authority to receive the objection. 6. I have considered the contentious raised by the learned Counsel for both the parties. Under the provisions of the Act, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer is impowered to receive the objection filed u/s 9-A of the Act and in undisputed cases, he is competent to pass final orders. But in disputed cases, he shall forward the cases to the Consolidation Officer who is empowered to dispose of the same according to law. Under the provisions of the Act, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer is impowered to receive the objection filed u/s 9-A of the Act and in undisputed cases, he is competent to pass final orders. But in disputed cases, he shall forward the cases to the Consolidation Officer who is empowered to dispose of the same according to law. Section 9-A of the Act is as follows:- Disposal of cases releating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings- (1) The Assistant Consolidation Officer shall- (i) Where objections in respect of claims to land or partition of joint holdings are filed, after hearing the parties concerned; and (ii) Where no objections are filed, after making such enquiry as he may deem necessary, settle the disputes, correct the mistakes and affect partition as far as may be by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on the basis of such conciliation. (2) All cases which are not disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation officer under Sub-section (1), all cases relating to valuation of plots and all cases relating to valuation of trees, wells or other improvements, for calculating compensation therefor, and its apportionment amongst co-owners, if there be more owners than one, shall be forwarded by the Assistant Consolidation Officer to the Consolidation Officer, who shall dispose of the same in the manner prescribed. (3) The Assistant Consolidation Officer, while acting under Sub-section (1) and the Consolidation Officer, while acting under Sub-section (2), shall be deemed to be a court of competent jurisdiction, anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force notwithstanding. 7. This section makes it clear that the Asstt. Consolidation Officer's function is that of a pre-trial authority. He can, no doubt, pass final orders in undisputed cases. But in other cases, he tries to find out whether there is a dispute and attempts to bring about a compromise and can only report the matter to the Consolidation Officer, the trial court which takes evidence and adjudicates, if no compromise is possible. In other words, in contested case, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer is only a pre-trial court and the Consolidation Officer alone is the competent court to pass the final orders regarding the title of the parties. In other words, in contested case, the Asstt. Consolidation Officer is only a pre-trial court and the Consolidation Officer alone is the competent court to pass the final orders regarding the title of the parties. Therefore, even if an objection u/s 9-A of the Act is entertained by the Consolidation Officer in absence of the reference made by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, the entertainment by the Consolidation Officer cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 8. A reference has also been made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to the decisions in Bhagwati v. Dy. Director of Consolidation CMW No. 4978 of 1971, D/- 5-4-1976, which was followed in Ram Nagina v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, W. P. No. 4569 of 1970, D/- 17-5-1979. In these cases, the provision of Section 44-A of the Act was taken into consider into which runs as follows: 44-A. Powers of subordinate authority to be exercised by a superior authority -Where powers are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or the rules made thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by an authority superior to it. 9. The above provisions of Section 44-A makes it clear that a superior authority may exercise powers as are given in the Act to an authority inferior to it. Therefore, it was held that the Consolidation Officer was entirely with in the power to entertain the objection and the decision in the case of Nand Kumar Tewari v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1969 RD 58 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents was distinguished on this basis. 10. There is yet another aspect of the case. The objection filed by the Petitioners was received by the Consolidation Officer no objection was raised. on behalf of the Respondents regarding its maintainability. The case was decided by the Consolidation Officer on merit. The question of maintainability was also not challenged in appeal as well by the Respondents. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) heard and decided the case on merit. The result was that the order of the Consolidation Officer merged in that of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The objection was taken for the first time before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision regarding the maintainability of the objection received by the Consolidation Officer. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) heard and decided the case on merit. The result was that the order of the Consolidation Officer merged in that of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The objection was taken for the first time before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision regarding the maintainability of the objection received by the Consolidation Officer. If a party does not take objection as to the jurisdiction at the very initial stage, then it would be deemed that he had waived the objection. In State of U.P. v. Phool Singh 1974 Unreported Revenue Cases 502, the division bench of this Court has observed as follows: It is well settled that if a court acts without jurisdiction, its decision can be challenged in the same, way as it would have been challenged if it had acted with jurisdiction, i. e. an appeal would lie to the Court to which it would lie if its order was with jurisdiction. Where an order of the trial court had been upheld on appeal by a court of competent jurisdiction the mere fact that the trial court bad acted without jurisdiction will not justify interference treating the appellate order also as a nullity. Evidently, the appellate court in a case which properly comes before it on appeal, is fully competent to decide whether the trial was with or without jurisdiction, and it has jurisdiction to decide the matter rightly as well as wrongly. If it affirms the conviction and thereby decides wrongly that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try and convict, it cannot be treated as a nullity. Held that the initial lack of jurisdiction in the entertainment of the objection by the Consolidation Officer vanished when the matter was decided by the Settlement Officer on appeal. 11. In the case of Tungal Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation 1969 RD 54 it has been held that where an objection it to the procedure and jurisdiction of the consolidation is not taken, it gives rise to an estopple. 12. The principle laid down in above cases is fully applicable to the present case. 13. In view of what have been discussed above there was no justification for the Dy. Director of Consolidation to allow the revision on the ground that objection u/s 9-A of the Act filed before the Consolidation Officer was not maintainable. 12. The principle laid down in above cases is fully applicable to the present case. 13. In view of what have been discussed above there was no justification for the Dy. Director of Consolidation to allow the revision on the ground that objection u/s 9-A of the Act filed before the Consolidation Officer was not maintainable. The consolidation courts are meant to decide the right and title of the parties to do justice and are not expected to dispose of the cases merely on technicalities. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be quashed. 14. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8-10-1971 is quashed and he is directed to decide the revision on merit and in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs.