JUDGMENT M.P. Singh, J. - By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus quashing the proceedings the in cases pending before the Consolidation Officer and directing him not to proceed with the matter. 2. The short facts are that : 3. Notification under Section 4 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued in the year 1982, and in pursuance of that allotment of chaks were made. Ultimately, controversy between various parties stood finally decided by means of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30-10-1985. No, objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha against the petitioners allotment. The provisional consolidation scheme was confirmed in accordance with Section 23 of the Act. The case of the petitioners further was that the new records were prepared in accordance with Section 27 (1) of the Act. 4. According the petitioners some complaints were filed before the Collector, Deoria by some of the tenure-holders. By means of an order dated 9-7-1986 the Collector constituted an enquiry-committee to examine the record of village Charmardeha. The said enquiry committee consisted of the Collector as its Chairman, and Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, Joint Deputy Director of Consolidation and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna as its Members. A copy of the said order dated 9-7-1985 passed by the Collector, constituting the enquiry committee has not been filed by the petitioners as according to them the same was not supplied. The enquiry committee submitted its report on 23-3-1986 for expunging the names of several tenure-holders including those of the petitioners. On the basis of that report, proceedings under Section 42-A of the Act have been registered by the Consolidation Officer. 5. So far as this court is concerned, it is not satisfied whether these proceedings are under Section 42-A or some other provision as no material has been placed before the. court. According to learned counsel for the petitioners that since no objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha, the present proceedings are barred by Section 11-A of the Act. The entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. 6. So far as these points are concerned, they need factual foundation. For this purpose, the Consolidation Officer is the only the competent authority to record its own finding on this factual aspect. The entire proceedings are without jurisdiction. 6. So far as these points are concerned, they need factual foundation. For this purpose, the Consolidation Officer is the only the competent authority to record its own finding on this factual aspect. The petitioners can raise these objections before him that he has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and that the proceedings are barred by Section 11-A of the Act or any other provisions of law. 7. In my opinion, the petition has got no merit. It is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the petitioners are free to raise their objections before the Consolidation Officer, who will decide the same in accordance with law.