Prakash Krishna, J.- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.N. Singh and learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. Challenging the order dated 21st of September, 2011 passed the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bareilly in two connected revisio nos.226 of 2011 and 235 of 2011, the present writ petition has been file 3. The petitioners claim that they are grandsons of Mohd. Azim. Mohd. Azim died in the year 1953 and therefore, they are entitled to succeed o the disputed property. After his death, the property in dispute was never j recorded in the name of Mohd. Azim. 4. The village had come under the consolidation operation and after completion of the consolidation operation the village was denotified in til LCD Mohd. Harun v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (Prakash Krishna, J.) 187 year 1962-1963. During the first consolidation operation, the petitioners or any other person did not raise any objection with regard to the deletion of the name of Mohd. Azim. The property in dispute was recorded in the name of Qareem Bux. 5. Thereafter, the village came under consolidation operation for the second round in the year 1990. Even then, no objection was filed by the present petitioners. After about nine years a belated objection was filed which was allowed exparte. When the contesting respondents came to know of the exparte order they applied for setting aside the exparte order, simultaneously they preferred appeal. The appeal was dismissed as the restoration application filed by them was pending. Ultimately, the exparte order was recalled. 6. It appears the in pursuance of the exparte order names of the petitioners were recorded in the revenue record. 7. The matter was carried before the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the instance of the present petitioners who has dismissed the revisions on the finding that no objection was raised by the present petitioners during the first consolidation operation nor did they file any objection within the prescribed period in the second consolidation operation. It has also been found that there was a litigation between the parties under section 229 B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act which was decided against the petitioners. On these findings the revisions were dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply as to why any dispute was not raised during the first consolidation operation. On these findings the revisions were dismissed. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply as to why any dispute was not raised during the first consolidation operation. Only this much he could submit that since the petitioners are in possession, therefore, they did not raise any objection. The- said explanation is wholly insufficient. Finality is attached to the consolidation operation. 9. Section 48 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act provides that a plea which might or ought to have been raised earlier and has not been raised, the said plea will be barred in subsequent proceedings. There is also no explanation for not filing the objection during the consolidation operation in the village. 10. The plea that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner is not well founded as no such plea was put forward before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in the revisions. 11. Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act attaches finality to the declaration and adjudication of rights of tenure holders in respect of land in a consolidation area in respect of adjudication made by the consolidation authorities. 12. It bars the jurisdiction of the civil court and the revenue court to entertain any suit or proceeding with respect to rights in such land or with respect to any other matters for which a proceeding could or ought to have been taken under the Act. The Apex Court in the case of Subha Singh v. Mahendra Singh and others. AIR 1974 SC 1657 held that all entries in the record of rights prepared under sub section (1) of Section 27 shall be final and conclusive. The idea behind the enactment of the U.P.C.H. Act is to determine the rights of the parties finally and conclusively; and, if after determination, a party is permitted to wriggle out of the order of consolidation authority in the manner in which the respondent no.2 herein has sought for, that would frustrate the entire object and purpose of the U.P.C.H. Act for which it was enacted. 13. The findings recorded by the Deputy Director of the Consolidation are well considered findings. I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily.