JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - In the basic year, Gayadin was recorded as Chief tenure-holder. An objection was filed by the petitioner under Section 9-A (2) before the Assistant Consolidation Officer claiming that he was entitled to the entry of his name by virtue of his possession. In para 3, he alleged that : " ;g fd vks0fu0 ij ge izkFkhZ 30 o"kZ dkfct n[ky pys vk jgs gSa vkSj bl vks0fu0 ds vk/ks Hkkx dks vius bl cSy ls tksrrs gSa rFkk 1@2 Hkkx esa izkFkhZ vkckn gSA " 2. It was alleged in the objection that Gayadin since had died, therefore, the entry in his name was wrong. On this basis, the petitioner alleged that his name be recorded in the revenue papers. The objection was contested by the opposite party. 3. The applicant filed an application on 18-4-87 for amendment of the objection stating that he was the legal heir of the deceased Gayadin by virtue of being a relation set up in para 1 of the amendment application. The amendment application was contested by the opposite parties. 4. On 18-4-1987, the Consolidation Officer rejected the application on the ground that the amendment sought was afterthought and the same would change the nature of the case. 5. Before the Consolidation Officer, the opposite party, Ramjeet, also had filed an objection under Section 9-A (2). It was much after the expiry of the period prescribed. Along with the application, Ramjeet applied for condonation. The Consolidation Officer also rejected the objection of Ramjeet on the ground of limitation. 6. Both of these matters went to the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48. One of the revisions was filed by the applicant against rejection of the amendment application and the other by Ramjeet challenging the order refusing to condone the delay. 7. On 10-8-87, the Director of Consolidation disposed of both of these revisions which were numbered as 384 and 934 of 1986. He upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer rejecting the amendment application on the ground that allowing of the same would change the nature of the case, whereas he found that the revision preferred against the order refusing to condone delay was justified. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties. To me, it appears that the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have committed manifest error in rejecting the amendment application. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties. To me, it appears that the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have committed manifest error in rejecting the amendment application. The petitioner had filed the objection within the time allowed and by means of the application, he took the ground on which he claimed the right over the land in dispute. This did not mean changing of the nature of the case. Moreover, even if it was so, in consolidation that principle cannot be applied as it is understood and applied in civil suits. The claim of the petitioner was that he was the heir and legal representative of Gayadin and in the alternative on the basis of possession. These were not two inconsistent pleas one defeating the other. The grounds given by the Consolidation Officer as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation for rejecting the amendment are untenable. 9. The Deputy Director also erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay filed by Ramjeet in filing the objection. That was erroneous. 10. Consequently, I allow the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 18-4-1987 and 10-8-87.