JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, J. In this writ petition the petitioners have impugned the order of the revisional authority, respondent No. 2, whereby it has affirmed the order of the appellate authority respondent No.3, which in turn affirmed the order passed by the Consolidation Officer allowing the objection raised by the private respondents in relation to R.S. plot No. 630 measuring one decimal. The impugned order of the revisional authority is Annexure 11 while those of the appellate authority and the Consolidation Officer are Annexure 9 and 8 respectively. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. According to the petitioners, Cadastral, Survey plot No. 309 was recorded in the name of Bhikhan Kandu in the year 1908, 1911 and it was shown that he had his house over the said plot. Bhikhan Kandu died issueless Thereafter the petitioners came in possession of the said plot measuring six decimals. According to the petitioners a well was constructed by their ancestors over the foresaid plot No. 309 and the plot was used for residential purposes. In the year 1936, a suit was filed by the then landlord for arrears of rent and to take back possession of the said plot of land which was Gairmajarua land. In the year 1937, the suit was compromised and the petitioners were given the land and were made responsible for payment of rent. One of the uncles of the petitioners who was a party in the said suit executed a sale deed in favour of some of the respondents. This become subject matter of dispute between the parties because out of four decimals of land sold by the said uncle of the petitioners, two decimals related to C.S. plot No. 309 on which the house of the petitioners was located and two decimals related to C.S. plot No. 311, the ancestral house. Ultimately a panchyat was convened and the said purchasers reconvened the lands to the petitioners by registered sale deed Annexure-5 According to the petitioners, C.S. plot No. 306 was renumbered after revisional survey over which the petitioners do not claim any right or title. So far as S. Plot No. 309 measuring 6 decimals is concerned, it was bifurcated into two plots namely R.S. plot No. 630 measuring one decimal and R.S. plot No. 629 measuring 6 decimals. So far as S. Plot No. 309 measuring 6 decimals is concerned, it was bifurcated into two plots namely R.S. plot No. 630 measuring one decimal and R.S. plot No. 629 measuring 6 decimals. In the consolidation proceeding, R.S. plot No. 630 measuring one decimal was shown to be in illegal possession of the petitioners with their house standing on it. On the basis of the said entries in the revenue record, the register of lands etc. were published on 21.11.1973 under Section 10(1) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act,). It is the case of the petitioners that objection, if any, could be filed within 30 days of the publication made under Section 10(1) of the Act, but the respondents did not raise any such objection. The bar under Section 10 A of the Act, therefore, operated and the respondents could not be permitted to raise any objection at a later stage. According to the petitioners, the respondents purported to file a suit for years later in the years later in the yeas 1977 which also stated in the year 1977 itself in view of consolidation proceeding Treating that as giving them a cause of section, the respondents filed their objection which has been allowed by the Consolidation Officer and affirmed by the appellate as well as by the revisional authority. It is the submissions of the petitioners that such an objection filed in the year 1983 was clearly barred under section 10A of the Act and section 10B of the Act did not apply having regard to the facts of the case. 3. So far as the private respondents are concerned there is some dispute as to the manner in which the C.S. Plot No. 306 and 309 were divided after revisional survey, but it is not in dispute that R.S. plot No. 630 measuring one decimal was recorded in the illegal possession of the petitioners showing that their house stood on the said plot-since the dispute is confined to this plot alone, it is not necessary to refer to the other plot which were created after the revisional survey proceeding. 4. Counsel for the petitioners sought to urge several grounds in support of his plea that the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be set aside. 4. Counsel for the petitioners sought to urge several grounds in support of his plea that the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be set aside. It was sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioners that one decimal of plot no. 309 was homestead land and that was the portion of the plot which was in their possession. Since it was homestead land, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the said plot. However, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out from the record that this objection was taken either before the consolidation officer or before the appellate or revisional authority. The question not having been raised before any of the authorities under the Act, I am not persuaded to examine this question in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. It was then submitted that under section 8 of the Act, up-to-date record of right is prepared and that attains finality. Therefore, the revisional survey plot No. 630 which was recorded in the named of the petitioners cannot be interfered with by the consolidation authorities. The argument was never raised before the authorities under the Act which even otherwise is misconceived. On the basis of the preparation of up-to-date record of rights under Section 8 of the Act, the registers of lands is prepared under section 9 of the Act and statement of principles is also prepared under section 9A of the Act. Thereafter the register of lands and statement of principles are notified under Section 10 (1) of the Act, Under Section 10(2), any person aggrieved may challenge the publication of register under sub-section 1 within 45 days of the date of publication, disputing the correctness and nature of entry in the register or in the statement of principles. The register of lands prepared under section 9 has to disclose the name of the Raiyat, the area and the serial numbers of the plots of land held by the raiyat etc. Obviously, therefore, if any person is aggrieved by the plot recorded in the name of some other person who is not a raiyat, an objection can be raised under section 10(2) of the Act, and the authorities under the Act have jurisdiction submission is also without force. 6. Obviously, therefore, if any person is aggrieved by the plot recorded in the name of some other person who is not a raiyat, an objection can be raised under section 10(2) of the Act, and the authorities under the Act have jurisdiction submission is also without force. 6. It was then submitted that under section 10(2) of the Act, an objection can be filed only within 45 days of the publication of the register under sub-section 1 of section 10 of the Act, If no such objection is filed, such objection cannot be filed, such objection cannot be filed later, since the bar under section 10A operates and no question is respect of any entry made in the map or registers prepared under section 9, or the statement of principle prepared under Section 9A relating to the consolidation area, which might or ought to have been raised, under section 10 but had not been raised, can be permitted to be raised or heard at any subsequent stage or the consolidation proceeding. The submission is that if the private respondents were aggrieved by the entry made in the register of lands showing the plot in question in the possession of the petitioners, they ought to have filed an objection under section 10(2) of the Act within the period of limitation prescribed. They did not do so and for the first time they filed an objection in the year 1983. The objection was clearly barred by limitation. 7. In reply, counsel for the private respondents submitted that after the notification under Section 10 (1) of the Act published on 21.11.1973, as suit was filed by the private respondent in the year 1977 and the said suit abate in view of the consolidation proceeding, and therefore, the private respondents were left with no option but to file their objection which they field in the year 1983. It was therefore submitted that Section10B of the act was attracted. This point was considered by the revisional authority and the revisional authority upheld the contention of the private respondents that in view of the abatement of the suit that was filed in 1977, the respondents were left with no option but to move the consolidation authorities. It was therefore submitted that Section10B of the act was attracted. This point was considered by the revisional authority and the revisional authority upheld the contention of the private respondents that in view of the abatement of the suit that was filed in 1977, the respondents were left with no option but to move the consolidation authorities. Even if not in so many words, the order of the revisional authority justified the filing of objection under section 10B, and that was the submission urged before me as well. In my view, the submission must be rejected because section 10B permits an objection to be filed later if any right or interest is affected by any change or transfer made in respect of the lands, published under Section 10 (1) which cause of section had not arisen when proceedings under Sections 8 and 9 were started or were in progress. Such objection can be raised within 30 days of the cause of action but not later than the date of notification under Sections 26A or under sub-section (1) of Section 4A. Section 10B cannot apply to the facts of this case. When the register of lands was published on 21.11.1973 and plot No. 630 was shown to be in the possession of he petitioners the private respondents could have filed objection under Section 10(2) of the Act. They chose no to file any objection was barred under Section 10A after expiry of the prescribed period of 45 days from the date of publication of the register. The fact that four years later, they filled a suit, and that suit abated, will not give rise to a fresh cause of action, which did not exist when the register of land was originally published in November, 1973. It is not the case of the parties that plot No.630 was subject matter of any sale or transfer which adversely affected the right and interest of the private respondent. By their own action by filing a suit, the private respondents cannot give to themselves a fresh cause of section. In any event, there was nothing of prevent them from filing an objection under action 10 (2) of the Act within the period prescribed by law, Section 10B, therefore, does not help the revisional authority is clearly erroneous. 8. By their own action by filing a suit, the private respondents cannot give to themselves a fresh cause of section. In any event, there was nothing of prevent them from filing an objection under action 10 (2) of the Act within the period prescribed by law, Section 10B, therefore, does not help the revisional authority is clearly erroneous. 8. It was then submitted on behalf of the private respondents that the bar of Section 10A does not apply to the exercise of jurisdiction by the revisional authority under Section 35 of the Act. Reliance is place on a division Bench decision or this Court reported in 1985 PLJR 43 . I have carefully perused that decision, and no doubt it was held by this court that Section 10A does not operate as bar on the power of the revisional authority which could exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Section 35 of the Act within the limitation prescribe for exercise of that jurisdiction. It was also that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 35 was an independent proceeding and could not be said to be a subsequent stage of the consolidation proceeding so as to attract the bar under section 10 A. However the Court held that is must be shown that the power under Section 35 was really exercised by the revisional authority, and that the revisional authority having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case same to the conclusion that it was only just and proper that the parties should be allowed to file an objection for the ends of justice, even if the same was barred under section 10A of the Act, In that case as well the Court held in pagargaph 10 of the judgment that the Director had not exercised his jurisdiction under section 35 of the Act but had only disposed of the revision in normal course, as their was nothing to show that he had actually exercised his revisional jurisdiction to condone the delay in filling objection in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. In the instant case as well, the position in the same. The revisional authority held, not in so many words, that objection was not burred under the Act because of the fact that a suit was subsequently filed which abated and therefore the private respondents had no option but to move the consolidation authorities. 9. In the instant case as well, the position in the same. The revisional authority held, not in so many words, that objection was not burred under the Act because of the fact that a suit was subsequently filed which abated and therefore the private respondents had no option but to move the consolidation authorities. He really applied the principle of Section 10B of the Act to the facts of the case and justified the filing of the objection. He did not hold that though the objections were barred by limitation, In the exercise of his jurisdiction under Sections 35, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, he found it to be an appropriate case where the private it to be an appropriate case where the private respondents should be permitted to file an objection even through barred by Section 10A of the Act. If the bar of Section 10A has to be overcome by invoking the powers of the revisional authority under Section 35 of the Act, it must be shown that the revisional authority exercised that power under section 35 to condone the delay in filing objection and permitted the concerned party of file objection which was other wise barred by limitation. This Court has held that the power can be exercised by the revisional authority under Section 35 for the ends of justice so that a wrong done is not perpetuated. There may be cases where the revisional authority may be satisfied that objection had not been filed with is the prescribed period due to some unfortunate and compelling reasons. 10. In these circumstances, since there is nothing to show that the revisional authority exercised its power under Section 35 of the Act to condone the delay in filing the objection by the private respondents, the order as it is cannot i.e. upheld. Accordingly, this write petition is allowed and the revisional order Annexure-11 dated 11.12.1985 is set aside. The revisional application is directed to be heard afresh by revisional authority which shall be disposed of in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to cost. Petition allowed.