JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. – Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri J.P. Singh for respondent no. 3. With their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit. 2. The objections filed by the petitioner under Section 9-B was allowed by the Consolidation Officer by order dated 28.04.1999. The third respondent challenging the said order, filed an appeal under Section 11 (1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 30.08.1999. The petitioner filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 30.08.1999 on the ground that the said order was passed ex parte against the petitioner and without any notice to him. The Settlement Officer Consolidation accepted the said plea of the petitioner and allowed the recall application by order dated 10.01.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed an application questioning the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the third respondent. The main objection of the petitioner in relation to the maintainability of the appeal was on the ground that against an order passed under Section 9-B, the appeal would lie under sub-section (3) of Section 9-B and not under Section 11 (1) of the Act. The objection filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 15.02.2016 holding that the objections should have been raised by the petitioner at the initial stage when the appeal was filed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed revision, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 10.06.2016. The petitioner, thereafter filed a review application which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 21.10.2016. The petitioner is now before this Court questioning the validity of these orders. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed under Section 11(1) of the Act against the order passed under Section 9-B(1) is not maintainable. It is urged that Settlement Officer Consolidation wrongly did not enter into the said question by holding that the said plea should have been raised at the initial stage. It is submitted that since the appeal was earlier decided ex-parte and thus, the petitioner never had the opportunity to raise the question about maintainability of the appeal. It is urged that Settlement Officer Consolidation wrongly did not enter into the said question by holding that the said plea should have been raised at the initial stage. It is submitted that since the appeal was earlier decided ex-parte and thus, the petitioner never had the opportunity to raise the question about maintainability of the appeal. He further urged that the land in dispute was initially allotted to the third respondent but the patta in his favour was subsequently cancelled and the said order has become final. Thus, the third respondent does not have any interest in the land and on this ground as well, the appeal at his instance is not maintainable. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the third respondent submitted that mentioning of a wrong provision of law will not divest the Settlement Officer Consolidation of the power conferred upon him by statutory provisions. It is urged that the appeal would lie before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, whether it is directed against the order passed under Section 9-A or under Section 9-B; as such the objection raised by the petitioner is of a technical nature. 4. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has not gone into the plea relating to the maintainability of the appeal on the ground that such objection should have been raised at the initial stage. Concededly, the order passed in appeal on 30.08.1999 has been held to be an ex-parte order and consequently, the recall application filed by the petitioner was allowed by order dated 10.01.2001. Thus, the petitioner could not have raised objection at the initial stage. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same cannot be a sufficient ground to set aside the impugned orders. Concededly, the appeal under Section 9B(3) also lies before the Settlement Officer Consolidation before whom the appeal filed by the third respondent is pending. Both under Section 11(1) as well as under Section 9B(3), the limitation for filing the appeal is 21 days. Thus, the mere fact that a wrong provision of law has been mentioned in the memo of appeal, will not divest the power conferred upon Settlement Officer Consolidation by virtue of Section 9B(3). The question whether the delay should be condoned or not, is an issue which is yet to be considered and decided by the authorities. Thus, the mere fact that a wrong provision of law has been mentioned in the memo of appeal, will not divest the power conferred upon Settlement Officer Consolidation by virtue of Section 9B(3). The question whether the delay should be condoned or not, is an issue which is yet to be considered and decided by the authorities. Likewise, the plea of the petitioner as to whether the third respondent is an affected party or not, as the patta in his favour stood cancelled long back, has also to be gone into by the Appellate Authority at the stage of the decision of the appeal. Shri J.P. Singh appearing on behalf of the third respondent does not have any objection, in case the said plea is decided by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation while deciding the appeal. 5. In view of the above, without interfering with the impugned order, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to decide the appeal having regard to the observations made above. Petition Disposed of.