JUDGMENT B. Kumar, Member - This second appeal has been filed by the appellant Ram Kishore against the order of Sri V.S. Verma, Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, passed on December 28, 1985 in Appeal No. 115 of 1983 Jaunpur. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the land in dispute situate in village Jagdishpur, pergana and tehsil Mariahun, district Jaunpur, belonged to Sri Narain son of Sukhpal Dubey. During the consolidation proceedings, he was allotted Chak No. 466. Out of this Chak, three Chaks were carved out. Sri Narain executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Kishore in respect of two Chaks and delivered the possession. On the strength of this deed, Ram Kishore and Ram Nihore continued in possession. One Shambhoo of village Narainpur was allotted Chak No. 433 and Dina Nath was allotted Chak No. 187. Both Shambhoo and Dina Nath sold their Chaks to Smt. Dhanraji wife of Gopi Nath on July 16, 1972. On the basis of this transaction, the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed the order on August 24, 1972 expunging the names of the tenure holders and recording the name of Smt. Dhanraji against Chak Nos. 466, 433 and 187. The case of the appellant is that only a portion of Chak No. 466 was sold to Smt. Dhanraji and the remaining portion was sold to the appellant. The appellant filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act before the S.D.O. Mariahun with the prayer that they should be declared Bhumidhar of Plot Number 425 and 612. The S.D.O. dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Against this order the appellant went in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the S.D.O. Aggrieved with the order, dated December 28, 1985 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, the appellant has filed this second Appeal with the prayer to set aside the orders of the courts below. 3. The respondents did not contest the case despite notice. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned D.D.C. (R.) present in the Court has nothing to say. The case of the appellant failed both in the trial and appellate Court because the courts below has held that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The learned D.D.C. (R.) present in the Court has nothing to say. The case of the appellant failed both in the trial and appellate Court because the courts below has held that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The learned Counsel for the appellant has pleaded that the appellants could not be debarred from getting their names mutated even after the consolidation operation. He placed reliance on Tilak Ram v. Board of Revenue 1982 R.D. 330. It was held by the Hon'ble Justice K.N. Misra in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 3081 of 1977 that the mutation order cannot operate as a bar to the present suit nor it can be thrown out on the ground that the plaintiff had not applied for mutation before the consolidation authorities or that he had not challenged said order during the consolidation proceedings. 4. In the present case, Sri Narain executed a sale-deed in favour of Ram Nihor and Ram Kishore sons of Ram Harakh in respect of 2/3 of Chak No. 466-M (336/1 and 336/2). 1/3 of this Chak was sold to Shitla Prasad and Gaya Prasad sons of Bhagauti Prasad and Panna Lal son of Sri Maurya on June 8, 1972. On June 24, 1972, Sri Narain s/o Sukhpal and Shambhoo and Dina Nath sons of Raj Narain executed a sale-deed in favour of Smt. Dhanraji wife of Gopi Nath in respect of Chak No. 466-M (242/6, 259/2-M, 259/1) and Chak No. 187-M (260/1, 263/1, 258/1, 259/1, 259/2). It appears from aperusal of the C.H. Form 23, Part-I that the Assistant Consolidation Officer passed the order on August 24, 1972 that the name of Smt. Dhanraji wife of Gopi Nath would be recorded against Chak Nos. 466, 433 and 187 and the names recorded of the tenure-holders would be expunged. Probably the appellants did not take any steps to get their names mutated on the basis of the sale-deed executed in their favour. When they did not find their names in the revenue records, they filed a suit for declaration in the Court of the S.D.O. Mariahun. Relying on the orders of the A.C.O. passed on August 24, 1972 under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the learned S.D.O. held that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. When they did not find their names in the revenue records, they filed a suit for declaration in the Court of the S.D.O. Mariahun. Relying on the orders of the A.C.O. passed on August 24, 1972 under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, the learned S.D.O. held that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. This order was upheld by the learned Additional Commissioner. 5. It is borne out from the above facts that the name of Mst. Dhanraji was recorded in the revenue records against the whole portion of plots in dispute including the portion sold in favour of the appellants. It has been clearly held in Tilak Ram v. Board of Revenue (supra), that even if the name of some other claimant was mutated in the records on the basis of the mutation order passed under Section 12 of the U.P.C.H. Act, it being merely a mutation order would be open to challenge by any other claimant who can also urge and show the mutation order was illegal and void. Both the trial and the appellate Courts erred in holding that the appellant's suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 6. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the orders of the courts below dated August 19, 1983 and December 28, 1985 are set aside. Costs easy.