JUDGMENT B.L.Yadav, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it has been prayed that the order dated 23-1-90 (Annexure-5 to the petition), passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow camp at Jhansi, in proceedings under section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act) may be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that in proceedings under section 20 of the Act against the publication of provisional consolidation scheme, objections were filed by the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 and 5. It may be stated that in respect of plot nos. 512 area .23/.093, 591/1 area .8/.356, 337 area .81/.381 and 593 area .31/.121, sale deed was obtained by Nathu Ram respondent no. 4 from Mod Lal, respondent no. 5 on 11-5-89 and on that basis respondent no. 4 made an application for mutation. The said application was allowed on 22-6-89 and prior to that the consolidation officer has decided the objections of the parties by order dated 19-4-89. Against that order an appeal was preferred by respondent no. 4 against Moti Lal, respondent no. 5 and Nathu Ram, respondent no. 4. Another appeal was filed by Nathu Ram, respondent no. 4, the vendee in respect of the aforesaid plots against the petitioner and others claiming plot nos. 512 and 513 etc. in his chak. That appeal was dismissed by order dated 30-6-89 (Annexure-5) and it was held that in respect of plot no. 512 etc. no objection was filed by respondent no. 4 Nathu Ram. Against that order a revision was perferred by respondent no. 4 Nathu Ram before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which has been allowed by the impugned order holding that plot no 512 may be kept out of the consolidation scheme keeping in view the interest of respondent no. 4, the revisionist. Against that order the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at the stage of section 48 (forty eight) of the Act the plots cannot be taken out of the consolidation scheme, inasmuch as respondent no. 4 or his predecessor in interest, the vendor must have filed the objection at the stage of Section 9 (1) and 9-A of the Acr against the statement of principles under section 8-A and only at that stage plot no. 4 or his predecessor in interest, the vendor must have filed the objection at the stage of Section 9 (1) and 9-A of the Acr against the statement of principles under section 8-A and only at that stage plot no. 512 could have been taken out of the consolidation scheme if the circumstances, indicated under the Act and the rules, justified the same. But that was not done, hence section 11-A of the Act would operate as a bar. As in respect of the valuation of plot and well etc no objection was filed, consequently the same could not be done at the stage of section 48 when the revision was filed by the contesting respondents against the petitioner. Reliance was placed on Hari Narain Mani v. The Dy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, 1981 AWC 65 . 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is perfectly correct and that the sale deed has been obtained after obtaining permission from the Settlement Officer Consolidation as required by Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the Act. Hence the vendee, respondent no. 4 was entitled to raise his objection by the time the Consolidation Officer decided the case, the sale deed was not executed. The claim of respondent no. 4 must have been considered even at the stage of revision. It was further urged that substantial justice has been done under the impugned orders keeping in view the interest of respondent no. 4. Reliance was placed on Rishi Narain v. D. D. C, 1983 RD 22 and Mohd. Suleman Khan v. Mohd. Yar Khan, ILR 11 Alld. 267 FB. 4. As the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the contesting respondents, the parties have agreed that the petition may be decided on merits. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the principal question for determination is as to whether at the stage of revision under section 48 any plot could be taken out of the consolidation scheme even though no objection has been filed at the stage of section 9 or section 9-A. Under the Act scheme of consolidation proceedings has been provided which may be stated in brief. Section 7 provides revision of the village map, section 8 provides for revision of the field book, current and other registers, determination of valuation and shares in the joint holdings. Under Section 8 (2) the Deputy Director of Consolidation shall cause to be prepared a Khasra Chakbandi in the form prescribed in respect of all the plots falling in the unit Section 8-A provides for preparation of settlement of principles indicating details of area as far as they can be determined at this stage, to be earmarked for extension of abadi including areas for abadi site for Harijans and landless persons in the unit and for such other public purposes as may be prescribed. Section 9 provides the procedure for extracts being issued from records and statement and publication of records mentioned in Sections 8 and 8-A and the issue of notices for inviting objections by the tenure holders concerned either in respect of correcting the clerical mistakes, if any, or in respect of their rights and liabilities or in respect of valuation of the plots and valuation of trees, wells and other improvements. Section 9 (2) provides that any person to whom a notice under sub-section (1) has been sent or any other interested person may, within 21 days of receipt of notice of the publication under sub-section (1) as the case may be, file before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, objections in respect thereof disputing the correctness or nature of the entries in records or extracts furnished therefrom, or in the Statement of Principles, or the need for partition. Section 9-A provides for disposal of cases relating to claims to land and partition of joint holdings where the same cannot be decided on the basis of conciliation. 5. At the stage of section 9 or 9-A no objection was filed by respondent no. 4 that plot nos. 512, 513, 537, 591 and 592 which were purchased by him, may be kept out of the consolidation scheme. If any such objection was filed at that stage, the provisions of section 11-A would operate as bar. 5. At the stage of section 9 or 9-A no objection was filed by respondent no. 4 that plot nos. 512, 513, 537, 591 and 592 which were purchased by him, may be kept out of the consolidation scheme. If any such objection was filed at that stage, the provisions of section 11-A would operate as bar. But such objections or claim even though have been taken subsequent to the stage of section 9 or 9-A section 11-A is to the effect that no question in respect of claims to land or valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements, where the question is sought to be raised by a tenure holder of the plot or the owner of the tree, well or other improvements recorded in the annual register under section 10, relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised under section 9, but has not been so raised, shall be raised or heard at any subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings. 6. A bare reading of section 11-A (Eleven-A) would indicate that a great emphasis has been laid on section 9 and 9-A, indicating that if the objection in respect of valuation of plots, trees, wells and other improvements have not been raised at the proper stage which could have been raised, cannot be raised at the subsequent stage. It is manifest that after the stage of disposal of the objection under section 9-A, appeals are preferred under section 11 subsequent to the stage of section 9-A and the revision is preferred under section 48 of the Act at last the stage in the consolidation scheme. Hence if the objections by respondent no. 4 were not raised in respect of valuation of plots etc. at the stage of section 9-A, the same could not have been raised at the stage of section 48 (forty eight) of the Act. The District Deputy Director of Consolidation did not take this aspect of the matter into account. No such objections were taken at the stage of filing of the objection before the Consolidation Officer under section 9-A. The predecessor-in- interest of respondent no. 4, the vendee must have raised the objection about the valuation of plots or that plot no. 502 may be kept out of consolidation scheme. But no such objection was raised. There is no dispute about the right and title of respondent no. 4, the vendee must have raised the objection about the valuation of plots or that plot no. 502 may be kept out of consolidation scheme. But no such objection was raised. There is no dispute about the right and title of respondent no. 4 in respect of the sale deed obtained by him from Moti Lal, respondent no. 5 and the same can be challenged only at the appropriate stage by the person aggrieved. But so far as the allotment of Chak under the impugned order and the direction for treating plot No. 512 out of consolidation scheme is concerned, that can certainly be decided keeping in view the provisions of law. How a particular plot has to be kept out of consolidation scheme, principles have been indicated. If a plot has to be kept out of consolidation scheme, for that the condition precedent was to file objection at the stage of Section 9-A, otherwise Section 11-A would operate as a bar and such objection cannot be raised at the subsequent stage including the stage of Section 20 dealing with objections at the stage of allotment of Chaks. In respect of objection under Section 20, the bar of Section 11 has been maintained by the legislature. A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble H. N. Seth, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Hari Narain Mani v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1981 AWC 65 (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel, for the petitioner. 7. When a plot has to be kept out of consolidation scheme, it must be consistent with the statutory provisions of the Act and rules and not by keeping in view the interest of any private tenure holder. Whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed the plot no. 512 to be kept out of consolidation scheme with the following observation : Aisi stith me nigrani karta ke gata sankhya 512 par nihit us ke hiton ko dhyan me rakhte huen yadi is gate ko achak ka diya jata hai to adhik tark evam nyaya sangat hoga. (Alochyadesh dt. 23-1-90 page 22) 8. It follows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has kept plot no. 512 out of consolidation scheme just keeping in view the interest of respondent no. (Alochyadesh dt. 23-1-90 page 22) 8. It follows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has kept plot no. 512 out of consolidation scheme just keeping in view the interest of respondent no. 4 who did not raise any objection at the appropriate stage, which cannot be said to be justified in law and the same is an error apparent on the face of record. As regards the next submission of respondents that substantial justice has been done between the parties, by a perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petitioner was actually too sincere in raising objection that plot no. 512 etc. valuation has already been allowed in respect of plot no. 512 to the tenure holder or the purchaser as is clear by Annexure CA 3 filed alongwith counter affidavit and Annexure CA 4 (a copy of CH Form 23) that valuation has been assigned in Case no. 249 in respect of plot no. 512 where the well and some trees were situated. Hence the tenure holder concerned shall be compensated with the valuation assigned to him. Substantial justice has not been done by the impugned order. Similarly there is no dispute about the propositions of law indicated in Rishi Narain v. D. D. C. (supra), where the question was about the power of the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 (3) to provide a Nali to the opposite party. The principles indicated in ILR 11 Alld. 267 are not relevant hence not attracted. 9. Applying priori and posteriori reasonings it is manifest that the impugned order dated 23-1-1990 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained. However, the observations made in the judgment shall not affect the merit of the appeal pending before the court below. 10. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 23-1-1990 is hereby quashed There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.