JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The point raised in this writ petition though a short one is not free from difficulty. The point is whether the Consolidation Officer, opp. party No. 1, was competent to entertain the objection filed by opp. party No. 2 u/s 18 (2) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in view of the bar u/s 14 of the Act. 2. The facts stated in the writ petition, relevant for the present purpose, are as follows: -The Petitioners whose names have been recorded as owners of the properties in question in the Land Register prepared by the authorities under the Act have assailed the order of the Consolidation Officer as per Annexure-5 entertaining the objection of opp. party No. 2 registered as Objection Case No. 2 of 1980. The properties involved in the said Objection Case lie in village Kaitoi arid therefore the writ application is confined to properties in the said village though there are also disputes between the parties regarding properties in other villages. It is the case of the Petitioners that the objection raised by opp. party No. 2 relates to her claim of right, title and interest in the disputed properties along with the Petitioners. The basis for the claim and the reply of the Petitioners to it are not necessary to be stated here since the question involved ill the present proceeding relates only to the competence/jurisdiction of the Consolidation Officer to entertain the objection at that stage of the proceeding. According to the Petitioners, such an objection, if at all, could be raised by the opp. party No. 2 u/s 9 of the Act. She having faded to do so at that stage and the Land Register having attained finality u/s 13 of the Act, no objection to the entries made therein is available to be raised at the stage when objections to the consolidation scheme may be raised u/s 18 of the Act. To prop up their case the Petitioners rely on the bar u/s 14 of the Act. It appears from the impugned order, (Annexure-5) that this objection was negatived by the Consolidation Officer with the following cryptic observations: I do not consider that Section 14 is bar against filing this objection by the objector in further proceedings of the case. To prop up their case the Petitioners rely on the bar u/s 14 of the Act. It appears from the impugned order, (Annexure-5) that this objection was negatived by the Consolidation Officer with the following cryptic observations: I do not consider that Section 14 is bar against filing this objection by the objector in further proceedings of the case. In the interest of better consolidation it is desirable to accent the objection of the objector and proceed with the hearing of the case... It is relevant to state here that it is averred in the writ application that the opp. party No. 2 has filed objection claiming interest in .the properties of the family in other villages and one of those objection cases is pending before the Commissioner of Consolidation. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that keeping 'in view the scheme of the Act and the express bar u/s 14 thereof, the Consolidation Officer clearly erred in entertaining the objection petition filed by opp. party No. 2 for consideration on its merit. The learned Counsel for opp. party No. 2, however, supported the impugned .order and submitted that the bar u/s 14 is not applicable to opp. party No. 2 since she is not a land owner recorded in the Land Register prepared u/s 6 of the Act. 4. Since the main plank of the Petitioners case is the provision u/s 14 of the Act it is appropriate to quote the said section at the outset. 14. For an objection Subject to the provisions contained in Section 15, no question in respect of- (a) right, title and interest in land; (b) partition of joint holdings; or (c) valuation of lands houses, structures trees wells and other improvements where the question is sought to be raised by a land owner recorded in the Land Register prepared u/s 6 which question might or ought to have been raised u/s 9 but has not been raised shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. The Act consists of 60 sections divided under six Chapters. Each Chapter deals with a particular stage of the consolidation operation. Chapter I has only two sections including Section 2 providing definitions of the relevant terms under the Act. Chapter II comprising of Sections 3 to 15 (both inclusive) deals with preparation of map and Land Registers. The Act consists of 60 sections divided under six Chapters. Each Chapter deals with a particular stage of the consolidation operation. Chapter I has only two sections including Section 2 providing definitions of the relevant terms under the Act. Chapter II comprising of Sections 3 to 15 (both inclusive) deals with preparation of map and Land Registers. Section 14 comes under this Chapter. Chapter III comprising of Sections 16 to 22 deals with preparation of consolidation scheme. Section 18 is included in this Chapter. Chapter IV which includes Section 23 to 32 deals with enforcement of the scheme. Chapter v. has three sections. 33 to 35, and deals with prevention of fragmentation. Chapter VI comprises of the rest of the provisions that is, Sections 36 to 60 and is styled as miscellaneous. In this Chapter there are two provisions to which reference will be necessary later. They ate Sections 37 and 38 dealing with supervisory powers of the Commissioner of Consolidation and the Board .of Revenue respectively. Perusal of the provisions of Chapters II and III which are particularly relevant for the present proceeding shows that each Chapter comprises a self contained Code providing for publication of draft records inviting objections, disposal of objections received), I, from any person interested in the property, appeal by any person aggrieved by the order disposing of objections and publication of final register. As noticed earlier while Chapter H deals with preparation of map and Land Register. Chapter III deals with preparation of consolidation scheme. From the provisions under these Chapters it is manifest that the scheme is to finalise matters relevant at one stage of the operation before proceeding to the next stage. The purpose is also wholesome and desirable since that would avoid re-opening matters at a subsequent stage and thereby virtually setting at naught the entire operation. With such intent and purpose the legislature has provided detailed procedure at each stage for draft publication inviting objections raising of objections determination of objections raised, appeal against the order and finalisation of the draft after disposal of the appeal. To take the matter beyond any pale of doubt, Section 14 expressly bars raising of objections which could and ought to have been raised at the stage of Section 9 but were not so raised, at any subsequent stage. To take the matter beyond any pale of doubt, Section 14 expressly bars raising of objections which could and ought to have been raised at the stage of Section 9 but were not so raised, at any subsequent stage. An aspect which needs to be stressed here is that consolidation operation in an area does not merely affect all, individual or member of a family but all residents of the villages included in the notification. Lands of all the villagers are to be taken into consideration while preparing the consolidation scheme. Therefore, it becomes all the more necessary that the questions like, right, title and interest in properties and shares of individuals therein should be finalised before preparation of the consolidation scheme and the result of this exercise is reflected in the map and the Land Register finally published u/s 13 of the Act. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act, its working and the fact that consolidation operation is a time-bound programme, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Counsel for opp. party No. 2 that the bar u/s 14 of the Act does not apply to any person other than one whose name has been recorded as 'land owner' in the Land Register: In our view, the bar applies to all persons who claim interest in the land and who might or ought to have filed objection to the draft notification issued u/s 6 of the Act. Any other interpretation will go against the scheme of the Act and will defect its intent and purpose. This view gains support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gafoora and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut and Others, wherein the Court interpreting the provisions under Sections 9 (2) and 11-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, pari materia provisions to Sections 9 and 14 of the Act, held that Section 11-A barred all objections in respect of claim to land, partition of joint holdings and valuation of plots etc. relating to the consolidation area which had been raised u/s 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section but have not been so raised. 5. It was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 that if it is held that the bar u/s 14 operated against opp. relating to the consolidation area which had been raised u/s 9 or which might or ought to have been raised under that section but have not been so raised. 5. It was strenuously urged by the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 that if it is held that the bar u/s 14 operated against opp. party No. 2 and persons like her then they will have no scope to get their names entered as owners in the Land Register and other records prepared on its basis and that would cause prejudice and hardship. On giving our anxious consideration, we are unable to accept this contention also. Section 37 vests suo motu power in the Consolidation Commissioner to call for and examine the records of any case decided or proceedings taken up by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and he may after allowing the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make such order as he thinks fit. Under Sub-section (2) of the said section it is provided' that this power may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation in respect of authorities subordinate to him. Therefore a person who could not place his claim of title and interest to the property at the appropriate stage may file application before the Director or the Commissioner of Consolidation, as the case may be drawing their attention to any irregularity or illegality in the proceedings before the subordinate authorities 'and the said authorities, if convinced about the plea of the applicant, can pass appropriate order in exercise of revisional powers therefore, the picture sought to be projected by the learned Counsel that the affected persons will be left without any remedy and may ultimately lose valuable right to the property if the interpretation given by him to the provisions u/s 14 is not accepted, is not correct. 6. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs and for the reasons set out therein the order of the Consolidation Officer entertaining the objection filed by opposite party No. 2 u/s 18 (2) of the Act has to be held to be without jurisdiction and therefore is quashed. 6. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs and for the reasons set out therein the order of the Consolidation Officer entertaining the objection filed by opposite party No. 2 u/s 18 (2) of the Act has to be held to be without jurisdiction and therefore is quashed. But in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the fact that the case has been pending for more than six years, we consider it appropriate to direct the Consolidation Officer to send the objection to the Commissioner of Consolidation to be dealt with by him u/s 37 of the Act and in accordance with law. 7. The writ application is disposed of in the manner aforesaid. There will be no order as to costs of this proceeding. K.P. Mohapatra, J. 8. I agree.