Judgment B.S. Verma, J. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Chamyal, Advocate for respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.12.2005 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer, order dated 31.1.2009 passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and order dated 24.10.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure Nos.1, 5 and 6 to the writ petition). By impugned order dated 28.12.2005 passed u/s 6-A of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short, the Act), learned Assistant Consolidation Officer, on the basis of compromise, ordered to mutate the names of Vineet Kumar and Lalit Kumar as per sale deed executed by Salekh Chand in favour of their sons Vineet Kumar and Lalit Kumar on Khata no.552. Aggrieved by this order, appeal was preferred u/s 11-A of the Act which was also dismissed on the ground that no appeal lies against the order passed u/s 6-A of the Act. The only remedy is to file objection u/s 9-A of Act after Notification issued u/s 9 of the Act. Further aggrieved, revision was preferred. Revision was also dismissed on similar grounds. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents in which it is specifically stated that Governor was pleased to issue an Ordinance on 28.9.2004 whereby Section 6-A has been substituted by the State of U.P. in 2002 and thereafter before expiry of six months, the Uttaranchal (the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953) Adaptation and Modification Order 2002 was passed wherein Section 6-A(1) was inserted which reads as under:- “6-A(1) After the publication of notification under sub-section (2) of section 4 or section 4-A and before start of the proceeding under section 8, a case of undisputed mutation on the basis of succession shall be disposed of by a Consolidation Officer and on the basis of a transfer shall be disposed of by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, in such manner and after making such inquiry as may be prescribed; Provided that no case shall be entertained, continued or disposed of under this section after start of the proceeding under section 8. (2) An order made under sub-section (1) shall not be a bar to an objection under section 9.” In view of sub-section (2) of sub-section 6, as has been amended in 2005, this Court is of the considered view that learned appellate court as well as the revision court has rightly held that order passed under sub-section (1) of section 6 shall not be a bar to an objection under section 9 since it has been passed in undisputed cases on the basis of a transfer i.e. sale deed. In the light of aforesaid, I do not find any error in the impugned orders. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.