JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 7-4-1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad, allowing the revision filed by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 Bal Govind and Tulsi Ram and setting aside the orders dated 14th December 1979 and 8th February 1980 passed by the Consolidation Officer and further directing that the Amaldaramad of the order dated 8-11-1979 passed by the Consolidation Officer under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidarion of Holdings Act be made in the names of opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 on the plots in dispute which they had purchased from Smt. Phulwasi, opposite party No. 5, through registered sale deed dated 3rd October 1979. 2. The petitioner Gulab Shanker Tewari filed an application before the Consolidation Officer for setting aside of the aforesaid order of mutation dated 8th November 1979 with the allegations that he is in possession over the land in question on the basis of loan advanced by him to Smt. Phulwasi on 24th December 1969. He thus became Bhumidhar of the land under section 164 of the UP ZA and LR Act. It was further pleaded that Smt. Phulwasi had not executed any sale deed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 and they had on the basis of fictitious and forged sale deed got the mutation order in their favour by practising fraud upon the court. It was further pleaded that since Smt. Phulwasi was left with no interest in the land in dispute and the objector-petitioner was in possession over it and as such she could not transfer it to opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 and the mutation order passed in their favour be set aside. On this application the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 14th December 1979 directing notices to be issued to opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that Gulab Shankar had no locus standi to apply for setting aside the mutation order passed in their favour, which was not obtained by playing fraud upon court. On this application the Consolidation Officer passed an order on 14th December 1979 directing notices to be issued to opposite parties nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that Gulab Shankar had no locus standi to apply for setting aside the mutation order passed in their favour, which was not obtained by playing fraud upon court. It was further asserted that Smt. Phulwasi had executed a valid sale deed in their favour and their names deserved to be mutated on the land in question and the aforesaid order setting aside Amaldaramad of mutation order in their favour be recalled and the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the said mutation order be rejected being not maintainable. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 8th February 1980 rejected the prayer and fixed 26th February 1980 for hearing. Against these orders revisions were filed. The revision filed by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 7th April 1980 and the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer were set aside and the mutation order dated 8th November 1979 was directed to be incorporated in papers by holding that Smt. Phulwasi, who had executed sale deed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4, could alone seek setting aside of the mutation order if she had any grievance that it was obtained by playing fraud upon her or on court. It was further found that it does not appear that the mutation order was obtained by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 by playing fraud on court or on opposite party No. 5. The petitioner cannot apply for setting aside the said order. Hence his application was rejected. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of loan advanced by him to Smt. Phulwasi on 24th October 1976 and as such under section 164 of the UP ZA and LR Act, the petitioner became Bhumidhar. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he is in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of loan advanced by him to Smt. Phulwasi on 24th October 1976 and as such under section 164 of the UP ZA and LR Act, the petitioner became Bhumidhar. He contended that since the land in question was mortgaged by Smt. Phulwasi to the petitioner hence possessory mortgage would be deemed to be sale under the aforesaid section in favour of the petitioner and Smt. Phulwasi was left with no interest in the land in dispute and as such the sale deed dated 3rd October 1979 was invalid and the mutation order deserved to be set aside. I am unable to agree with this contention. 4. Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner appears to be an agreement for sale said to have been executed by Smt. Phulwasi on 24th October 1976 in favour of the petitioner. The said document is not a mortgage deed nor it can be construed as such. It is also not registered. There is a recital in the said document that for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- Smt. Phulwasi had contracted to sell it to the petitioner Gulab Shanker and a sum of Rs, 15, 000/- was paid as earnest money and that Gulab Shanker was put into possession over the land in dispute. It is also mentioned in the said document that the sale deed is to be executed within a period of three years in favour of Gulab Shanker. This document therefore purports to be an agreement for sale and not a possessory mortgage. The provisions of section 164 of the UP ZA and LR Act are, therefore, not attracted and the petitioner cannot claim to have acquired Bhumidhari rights on the basis of the said document. The genuineness of the said document is challenged and it has also not been proved. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot urge on its basis to have acquired Bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute. It is now well settled that no rights accrue in the property on the basis of agreement for sale. The genuineness of the said document is challenged and it has also not been proved. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot urge on its basis to have acquired Bhumidhari rights in the land in dispute. It is now well settled that no rights accrue in the property on the basis of agreement for sale. Bhumidhari rights will accrue in the land only upon the execution of the sale deed and not on the basis of an agreement for sale although possession might have been delivered to the person in whose favour the agreement for sale was executed. The agreement for sale will be enforced on being established that it was a genuine document and that the party had contracted to sell the property in question. Since this question is not involved in the present case I do not express any opinion about the validity or the genuineness of the alleged agreement for sale. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that since he is in possession over the land in question and as such he is entitled to apply for setting aside the mutation order dated 8th November 1979 passed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. I am unable to agree with the contention. The petitioner was not a party to the mutation proceedings and as such he could not as of a right apply for setting aside the mutation order dated 8th November 1979. It has not been shown in the present writ petition that no mutation proclamation was issued or that the mutation proclamation issued was not valid one. In the absence of any averment to that effect it cannot be said that the mutation order was not passed after issuing valid mulation proclamation. In the impugned order there is a mention that the Assistant Consolidation Officer had got mutation proclamation issued. No objection was filed by the petitioner in the mutation case even on the basis of his alleged posseesion over the land in question, which he could do when mutation proclamation was issued in this case before passing of the mutation order dated 8th November 1979 in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. Having not done so, he could not file an application for setting aside the mutation order which has been passed after issuing a valid proclamation. 5. 3 and 4. Having not done so, he could not file an application for setting aside the mutation order which has been passed after issuing a valid proclamation. 5. In Ram Yagya v. Brihshpati Nath, 1978 AWC 58 (Revenue) a Full Bench of the Board of Revenue, after reviewing relevant case law on the subject, held that:- "Mutation case are to be decided after issue of a proclamation. If the proclamation is valid in terms of section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act read with paras A-374 to 377 of the Revenue Court Manna', and yet no objection is filed against the mutation report and the case is decided as an uncontested one, we have no hesitation in saying that the order so passed in the case is not an ex-parte order in terms of section 200 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and hence no application for restoration of the proceedings under section 201 of the Act will be maintainable. Section 201 is related to Section 200 and cannot be read apart from it. The meaning of the word 'party' used in the two sections is therefore identical and signifies the person impleaded to the proceedings and absenting himself from the court on any specified date." "While no restoration application under section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would lie in an uncontested mutation case in which a perfectly valid proclamation is issued, such a restoration application by a person convincing the trial court of his 'ample interest in the land would lie, and shall be entertainable in an uncontested case in which an invalid and void proclamation was issued." 6. Having perused the relevant provisions regarding issuance of mutation proclamation as well as the provisions contained in sections 197, 200 and 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and Pras A-373 to 377 of the Revenue Court Manual, I find that the Board of Revenue has correctly held in the aforesaid case that if a valid mutation proclamation has been issued and the mutation case has been decided as an uncontested case, a third party cannot file an application for restoration and the mutation order cannot be set aside at his instance but if the mutation proclamation is invalid and a void proclamation has been issued, any person who claims interest in the land in dispute, can file a restoration application by showing that he has got a subsisting interest in the land in dispute and his restoration application in such a case would be maintainable. It is well settled that the mutation court would proceed to pass mutation order on merits only upon issuance of a valid and proper mutation proclamation. This pre-requisite condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by the mutation court is the most vital jurisdictional fact and its non-observance would operate to nullify the action taken and the order passed thereon by the concerned authority would stand vitiated in law. Thus, the question whether a valid mutation proclamation was issued or not, being a jurisdictional fact, could be raised even by a stranger to the proceedings who claims interest in the land in dispute, and also by a party to the proceedings, as it is well settled that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver of plea or acquiescence. 7. In Horilal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, CMW No. 1961 of 1977, D/- 14-12-1981, it was observed that:- "Where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. There would be implied nullification of the act done in non-compliance with mandatory provisions in the statute or the rules, although the statute does not set out consequence of its non-compliance". 8. There would be implied nullification of the act done in non-compliance with mandatory provisions in the statute or the rules, although the statute does not set out consequence of its non-compliance". 8. The provision regarding issuance of mutation proclamation contained in section 197 of the Land Revenue Act and Paras A-373 to 377 of the Revenue Court Manual are mandatory and not merely directory, and there would thus be implied nullification of the proceedings taken and orders passed therein, although the statute does not set out the consequence of its non-compliance. It is beyond all doubt that a court must have jurisdiction throughout the proceedings until termination of those proceedings by the judgment of the court. The mutation court, as already observed above, will have no jurisdiction to proceeding to pass mutation order without issuing a valid and proper mutation proclamation, It would not be merely a case of irregular exercise of jurisdiction but a case of per se want of jurisdiction, if an order of mutation is passed without issuing valid mutation proclamation and thus such a question can be raised even at a belated stage by any person aggrieved by the order. 9. In the present case, however, the mutation order appears to have been passed after issuing a valid mutation proclamation and as such the restoration application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected it. 10. The petitioner, if he had any subsisting right, title or interest in the land in dispute, should have filed an objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act, but having not done so at that appropriate stage, his objection would be barred under section 11-A of the Act. It is well settled that what could not be done directly it cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. If the petitioner's claim in respect of land as set up by him could not be considered on merits after publication of annual records under section 10 of the Act in view of the bar envisaged under section 11-A (1) of the Act, he cannot be permitted to raise and press his claim by this indirect method at this stage by applying for setting aside mutation order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer under section 12, which was passed after issuing valid mutation proclamation. The petitioner no doubt could file objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act by seeking condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, even after the publication of annual records under section 10 of the Act, which could be entertained only upon his showing just and sufficient cause explaining delay and laches on his part in filing the objection and not otherwise. But having not filed an objection under section 9-A (2) of the Act, the petitioner could not be permitted to resort to this method for the determination of his alleged claim. Thus, in this view of the matter also, I find that the application for setting aside aforesaid mutation order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in favour of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4 was not maintainable and it has been rightly rejected. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the Rules framed thereunder there is no provision to the effect that a mutation proclamation is to be issued on an application filed for mutation under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and as such even if a valid mutation proclamation had been issued the petitioner's application for setting aside the mutation order cannot be thrown out on the ground that a valid mutation proclamation was issued. He further contended that because there is no provision for issuance of mutation proclamation and as such the maintainability of the application for restoration will not depend upon the validity or invalidity of the mutation proclamation. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 12. In Bindhyachal v. Ram Krishna Rai, CMW No. 4171 of 1979 D/- 29th January 1982, 1 had an occasion to consider the matter and agreeing with the view expressed in an earlier Division Bench decision reported in Ugra Sen Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1970 RD 445, it was held that 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 sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 9 that a notice of mutation application should be published by issuing a suitable proclamation as is done by ordinary revenue courts dealing with a similar application. The provisions of sections 7 to 11 mutatis mutandis apply to the hearing and decision of any matter raised under sub-section (1) of section 12 which contemplates an application for mutation based on transfer or succession affecting any of the rights and interests in the land in dispute. A valid mutation proclamation has, therefore, to be issued while deciding a mutation application filed under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In case a valid mutation proclamation has been issued and a mutation order passed without any contest in the case, no restoration application will be maintainable at the instance of a third party; but where a valid mutation proclamation had not been issued, even a stranger to the proceedings on showing a subsisting valid title in the land in question, can file a restoration application for setting aside the mutation order. IN the present case, as already observed above, the mutation order dated 8th November 1979 was passed after issuing a valid mutation proclamation and as such the restoration application filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has committed no error in rejecting it by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the end, contended that the petitioner, who is in possession over the land in dispute on the basis of the aforesaid agreement for sale, cannot be deprived of possession without payment of the money which he had paid to the opposite party No. 5. This question does not crop up for consideration in the present case and 1 do not express any opinion on it, specially in view of the fact that the genuineness of the alleged agreement for sale has been challenged and the question regarding actual physical possession has also been disputed before me. 13. In the result the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. I, however, make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.