JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By this petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue in suit filed by the Petitioner u/s 229B/209 of the UP ZA and LR Act (for short the Act), are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of Certiorari. 2. The facts in brief are that a suit u/s 229B/209 of the Act was filed by the Petitioner alleging that he was Sirdar and in possession of plots No. 431, area 1 bigha 7 biswa It dues (corresponding to old plot No. 832). Respondent No. 6 contested the case of the Petitioner and alleged that during consolidation operations the land in dispute was recorded in the name of contesting Respondents and relevant C.H. Forms were issued to him, the Petitioner did not file any objection during consolidation operation and hence the claim of the Petitioner was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 3. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dismissed the Petitioner's claim holding that the same was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the suit filed by the Petitioner was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned Counsel for the contesting Respondents on the other hand urged that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the orders were correct. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the view that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are without any substance. There is string of decisions interpreting Section 49. Suffice it to say that Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is Couched in a very comprehensive language and in case no objection has been filed by any person, if he could have filed objection during consolidation operations, except in cases of fraud, he cannot be permitted to file a suit after de-notification u/s 52 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. 6. One Smt. Tetari was recorded as Bhumidhar of plot No. 838/5 and she was succeeded after her death by Chhedi and others, who executed a registered sale deed dated 14-4-64 in favour of Respondent No. 6 Darshan after obtaining permission from the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The vendee was entered during the consolidation operations and relevant C.H. Forms were issued in his name. It was for the Petitioner to have filed objection challenging the succession of Chhedi and others during consolidation operation after the death of Smt. Tetari. He could also challenge the sale deed dated 14-4-64 in favour of Respondent No. 6. But the Petitioner failed to do so. Now it is too late in the day to assert that the entries made during consolidation operation were incorrectly prepared in the name of Respondent No. 6 etc. There appears to be no allegation of fraud on the part of Respondent No. 6 etc. in getting the registered sale deed. The sale deed was obtained after taking permission from the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). At that stage also the Petitioner could have filed an objection challenging the grant of permission. 7. There is a Latin maxim, i.e. "VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENT1 BUS JURA SUBVENIUNT' which means that law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This maxim appears to be applicable in the case of the Petitioner. He did not initiate any proceeding during consolidation operation, when in fact, he could have filed objection at several stages, to wit, firstly at the stage when Smt. Tetari died and her successor Chhedi etc. moved application to get their names mutated, secondly at the stage when in view of the provisions of Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of UP CH Act, the permission was sought to be obtained from the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) for executing the sale deed, and thirdly even when the sale deed was executed the Petitioner could have challenged the same by filing an objection u/s 9 or 9A or he could have initiated some other appropriate proceedings. But he did not file any objection at any stage. Now in view of the bar created u/s 49 of the UP CH Act, the suit u/s 229B/209 of the Act was not maintainable. See the Supreme Court decision of Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue U.P., 1984 AWC 834 Para 18. 8. But he did not file any objection at any stage. Now in view of the bar created u/s 49 of the UP CH Act, the suit u/s 229B/209 of the Act was not maintainable. See the Supreme Court decision of Zafar Khan v. Board of Revenue U.P., 1984 AWC 834 Para 18. 8. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order appears to be correct and needs no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the result, the petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.