JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 28th March 1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 19th September 1978 passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows: One Sheo Prasad, son of Rampat Rai, was allotted chak no. 202 in respect of his holding during consolidation operations and other chak no. 301 was allotted to Ram Kishun and Ram Prasad. Ram Kishun and Ram Prasad are also sons of Ram Pat Rai. The petitioner Bindhyachal filed two separate objections under Section 12 of the Act before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 26th June 1976 asserting that the aforesaid chak holders, who were real brothers of the petitioners, bad died issueless and as such the land in dispute had devolved upon him and he is in possession over it. He thus prayed his name be recorded on the aforesaid land after expunging the names of the deceased tenure holders. The Assistant Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6th January 1977 allowed the objections filed by the petitioner and directed that his name be recorded after expunging the names of Sheo Prasad from chak no. 202 and Ram Kishun and Ram Prasad from chak no. 301. Opposite party no. 1 Ram Kishun Rai filed an appeal against the aforesaid order dated 6th January 1977 asserting that he is alive and his other two brothers, namely, Ram Prasad and Sheo Prasad, were also alive. He further asserted that the petitioner has wrongly got his name mutated on the land in dispute by falsely alleging that they are dead. A prayer for condonation of delay was also made by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioner contested the appeal asserting that his said brothers have already died and Ram Kishun, who has filed the appeal, is an imposter and he has got no right to file the appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) summoned the record of both the aforesaid cases nos. The petitioner contested the appeal asserting that his said brothers have already died and Ram Kishun, who has filed the appeal, is an imposter and he has got no right to file the appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) summoned the record of both the aforesaid cases nos. 2723 and 1508 and on its perusal found that no mutation proclamation was issued in those cases by the Assistant Consolidation Officer before passing the mutation order in favour of the petitioner and those orders passed in those proceedings stand vitiated in law. He also recorded his doubt about the statements which were recorded in the case by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as he found that there was a difference in the ink in recording the statements of the witnesses. Thus condoning the delay in filing the appeal he allowed it and alter setting aside the order dated 6th January 1977 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it on merits and the parties were directed to appear before him on 26th September 1978. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed a revision, which too was dismissed on the aforesaid grounds. The Deputy Director of Consolidation thus, directed both the aforesaid cases nos. 2723 and 1508 pertaining to land of cbaks nos. 202 and 301 to be decided on merits by the Consolidation Officer and the order dated 6lh January 1977 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside being not in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that opposite parties nos. 5 and 6 have erred in holding that the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer stood vitiated on account of non issuance of proclamation regarding which there is no provision under the UP CH Act and Rules framed thereunder. He thus contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as the view taken by opposite parties nos. 5 and 6 is erroneous. I am unable to agree with this contention. A Division Bench of this Court in Ugra Sen v. Dy. He thus contended that the impugned orders cannot be sustained as the view taken by opposite parties nos. 5 and 6 is erroneous. I am unable to agree with this contention. A Division Bench of this Court in Ugra Sen v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1970 RD 445, has laid down that J "No doubt Sections 7 to 11 do not specifically lay down that a proclamation shall be issued and published, but it is implicit in the provisions contained in subsection (1) and (2) of Section 9 that a notice of mutation application should be published by issuing a suitable proclamation as is done by the ordinary revenue courts dealing with a similar application. Since the Deputy Director has found as a matter of fact that the proclamation issued in the instant case was not in accordance with law, he was within his right in exercise of his revisional powers to bold that it was a material irregularity." 3. In this view of the matter I do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by opposite parties nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner had claimed mutation of his name over the aforesaid chak land in dispute by asserting that his brothers Sheo Prasad, Ram Kishun and Ram Prasad have died and the land had devolved upon him. The Assistant Consolidation Officer without issuing mutation proclamation proceeded............to pass mutation order in favour of the petitioner by expunging the names of the aforesaid persons from the land in dispute. 4. Apart from this infirmity regarding non issuance of the mutation proclamation, I further find that the Assistant Consolidation Officer acted illegally and without jurisdiction in passing the mutation order instead of remitting the record to the Consolidation Officer. Under Section 9-A (1) of the Act the Assistant Consolidation Officer can pass orders on the basis of conciliation between the parties appearing before him and where no conciliation had been arrived at, he gets no jurisdiction to pass the order directing expunction of the name of the recorded tenure holder, but to refer it with his report to the Consolidation Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the recorded tenure-holders had already died and as such there was no occasion for any conciliation between the parties in respect of the land in dispute because no one had appeared to claim succession in respect of the land in dispute nor any one had appeared to contend that the recorded tenure-holders are alive and that succession has not opened. I do not find any substance in this argument. 5. The Assistant Consolidation Officer under Sec. 9-A (1) of the Act read with rule 25-A can settle the dispute, correct the mistakes and effect partition by conciliation between the parties appearing before him and pass orders on basis of such conciliation. If no one appears to oppose the objection he gets no jurisdiction to pass an order in favour of the objector, neither on merits nor ex-parte. He can pass an order in exercise of powers under Sec. 9-A (1) of the Act only on the basis of conciliation and not otherwise, because if none appears to oppose the objection even then the case will come under the category of disputed case. The Assistant Consolidation Officer gets no jurisdiction to pass the order directing expunction of the name of the recorded tenure-holder by considering the claim of the objector on merits even if no one has turned up to oppose the objection, because in that event there would be no occasion to decide the case on the basis of conciliation. He gets jurisdiction under the said section to pass orders only on the basis of conciliation. If no conciliation is possible he has to forward the record of the case to the Consolidation Officer. This view finds support by a decision of this court in Saheb Bux Sigh v. Joint Director of Consolidation, 1966 RD 3, wherein Hon'ble N. U. Beg, J., as he then was, observed that : "Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the view of the law taken by the Director of Consolidation to the effect that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated July 31, 1961, was without jurisdiction as there was no disputed case before the Assistant Consolidation Officer when Srimati Bhagwant Kunwar had not appeared before him to contest the application of Saheb Bux Singh is an incorrect one. A dispute had arised as Saheb Bux Singh had filed an objection to the entry of the name of Srimati Bhagwant Kunwar in the revenue records. It is true that Srimati Bhagwant Kunwar had not appeared in response to the notice nor had she filed any objection. Her non appearance in the case would not, however, prevent the case from being treated as a disputed one. Her non appearance in the case would only result in the failure of conciliation Section 9 of the Act divides disputed cases into two categories. The first consists of cases in which conciliation has been arrived at and the second of remaining disputed cases. Any dispute in respect of which conciliation has not been arrived at would be covered by the expression "remaining disputed cases' with the result that the Assistant Consolidation Officer would be entitled to report it to the Consolidation Officer for disposal". (Emphasis Supplied). 6. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was per-se illegal and without jurisdiction as he acted illegally in proceeding to decide the case himself instead of referring it to the Consolidation Officer. Further the proceedings also stand vitiated on the ground that mutation proclamation was not issued in this case. Thus in my opinion the orders passed by opposite parties nos. 5 and 6 do not suffer from any error and substantial justice appears to have been done in the case. The petitioner will have still an opportunity of leading evidence to establish the fact that his brothers Sheo Prasad, chak holder no. 202, and Ram Kishun and Ram Prasad, chak holder no. 301, are dead or alive. The Consolidation Officer will give ample opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence after serving notice on them as well as after issuing mutation proclamation so as to give due opportunity to the interested persons to file objection in the matter. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. I, however, make no order as to costs. The stay order is hereby vacated. Petition dismissed.