ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. - By this petition 'under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 6th Mar. 1975 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a gazette notification under S.4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued. The consolidation operations started in respect of the land in dispute. The plot in dispute is No. 153 (area 55 acres). In the basic year this plot was entered into name of the petitioner as sirdar. Gharbaran, Respondent 2, filed an objection under S. 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act stating that he was the bhumidhar of the land in dispute. In the alternative he also alleged that he was in adverse possession over the land in dispute. By remaining in adverse possession for more than the statutory period he matured sirdari rights under S. 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner remained out of possession and lost his rights. The entry in the name of the petitioner must be expunged. 3. The petitioner filed a written statement. He stated that he was entered in 1356 Fasli as an "occupant" and in 1359 Fasli he was in actual cultivatory possession. Hence in view of S. 20(b) of the Act and S. 3 of the U.P. Land Reforms Supplementary Act (Act No. 31 of 1952) he became adhivasi and after the appointed date he became sirdar under S. 240B of the Act and the right of Respondent 2 as the landholders came to an end. Further he did not file any objection in proceedings under S. 240-G of the Act hence rights were lost. The entries of the petitioner are not against the provisions of law and they cannot be expunged. The objection of Respondent 2 in view of these facts deserves to be dismissed. 4. The Consolidation Officer decided the case in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement .Officer (Consolidation) also affirmed this decision. Respondent 2 preferred a revision under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 6th Mar. 1975. Against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. 4. The Consolidation Officer decided the case in favour of the petitioner. The Settlement .Officer (Consolidation) also affirmed this decision. Respondent 2 preferred a revision under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 6th Mar. 1975. Against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. I have heard Sri Narendra Kumar for the petitioner and Sri V. P. Misra for the respondents. 6. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of being recorded occupant in 1356 Fasli and being in actual cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli the .petitioner became adhivasi and later on sirdar. Proceedings under S. 240-G of the-Act started and under Z.A. Form No. 101, etc. The petitioner was recorded as adhivasi whereas Respondent 2 was entered as landholder. The compensation provided under S. 240-D of the Act was published in accordance with S. 240F of the Act and even after publication in the gazette and after notice being served, the Respondent 2 had full information and, at any rate, it shall be presumed ' that he has got sufficient information, but nevertheless he did not prefer any objection in the proceedings under S. 240-G of the Act. Hence the petitioner became sirdar from adhivasi and the rights and interests of Respondent 2 as landholder came to an end. Awadhesh Singh v. Bikram, AIR 1975 All 324 (FB) was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was further urged that the name of Respondent 2 was fictitiously recorded in revenue papers and he was never in possession. Hence there was no question of his acquiring rights under S. 210 of the Act. The-impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed. 7. On behalf of Respondent 2 the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner were refuted and it was urged that the petitioner could not acquire adhivasi rights and thereafter sirdari rights. The aforesaid case of Awadhesh Singh v. Bikram (supra) was not applicable to the facts of the present case. It was further urged that the entries in favour of Respondent 2 were made in accordance with law and in any case he did mature the rights under section 210 of the Act. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf the parties. It was further urged that the entries in favour of Respondent 2 were made in accordance with law and in any case he did mature the rights under section 210 of the Act. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf the parties. I have also perused the impugned orders and other ;relevant orders. The proceedings under 240G of the Act started. The petitioner on account of being recorded as an occupant in 1356 Fasli and being in actual cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli acquired adhivasi rights and on the appointed date the petitioner acquired rights under S. 140-B of the Act. Notification under S. 240-D of the Act was published in view of S. 240-F of the Act. In spite of full information having been given to Respondent 2 he did not file any objection. Hence his right as land-holder came to an end and that the petitioner became sirdar from Adhivasi. The final publication of the statement ,was, madeunder S. 240-J of the Act and thereafter Respondent 2 was entitled only for compensation as provided under S. 240-C of the Act. In case the Respondent 2 has got any right left in the plot in dispute, he should have filed objection in the proceedings under S. 240- G of the Act, but he did not do so. Hence his rights came to an end. Those rights which extinguished cannot be revived after start of consolidation operation. Awadhesh Singh v. Bikram, AIR 1975 All 324 (FB) (supra) applies on all fours. The facts of that case were similar to the facts of the present case, hence reliance is placed upon,the same case. 9. The next argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also got force. In my opinion, entries in the name of Respondent 2 were not made after following the procedure prescribed by law. The Consolidation Officer has recorded a clear finding that P.A. 10 notices were not served on the main tenant. Hence the entries in the remarks column or in Varg-9 made in favour of Respondent 2 were not in accordance with law, but the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider it and unless the entries in revenue papers are legal, they cannot be relied upon nor can enure for the benefit of Respondent 2. 10. Further there is another aspect of the case. 10. Further there is another aspect of the case. Once the rights of Respondent 2 came to an end as land-holder in proceedings under S. 240-G of the Act, how he would be able to regain possession again and why the petitioner who first became adhivasi and later on became sirdar, should leave his possession particularly when he had acquired more valuable rights of sirdar provided by law and the right of the land-holder came to an end in proceedings under Ss. 240-A, 240-G and 240-H of the Act. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is manifestly erroneous and deserves to be quashed. 12. In view of the discussion made herein before, the petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 6th Mar. 1975 is hereby quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.