JUDGMENT R.P. Singh, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and also learned standing counsel at the admission stage. The short point involved in the Present case is whether the objection raised by the Petitioner that he should not be allotted land beside the 'khalihan' as he has his other land towards the other side of the Khalihan also could be raised by the Petitioner under Section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act for the first time or not ? The Deputy Director Consolidation has dismissed the revision merely on the ground that such an objection should have been raised by the Petitioner under Section 9 (b) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and it can not be raised for the first time in Proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. The Deputy Director Consolidation was in error in holding that such an objection could not be raised at the stage of Section 20 of the consolidation of Holdings Act. It has been held long back by this Hon'ble Court in the case reported in 1966 R.D. 101 that when the Petitioner was not affected at the stage of Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and he was affected for the first time by allotment of chak under Section 20 of the Act, it is open for him to raise such an objection for the first time under Section 20 of the Act. Since in the Present case the petitioner has been affected by the allotment of the chak besides the Khalihan for the first time under Section 20 of the Act and also in view of the fact that he has his other land on the other side of the Khalihan, it was open for the Petitioner to raise such an objection and this objection could be decided on merits by the Deputy Director Consolidation himself. Hence I allow the writ petition set aside the order passed by Deputy Director Consolidation dated 24.1.1987 and direct him to decide the revision on merits in view of the observations made above costs easy. 2. A Copy of this order may be given to learned Counsel for the Petitioner on Payment of necessary Charges within three days.