JUDGMENT : RAJIV JOSHI, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 20.7.2018 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur in Revision No. 81/145 of 2017-18, Manjeet Singh Vs. Tajendra Singh, as well as the order dated 19.5.2016 passed by the Consolidation Officer rejecting petitioner's objection filed under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as barred by limitation. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel. Perused the record. 3. It is apparent from the record that with regard to the land in dispute, one power of attorney dated 20.2.1997 was executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent no. 4- Mahendra Singh. The respondent no. 4 -holder of the power of attorney, executed two registered sale deeds dated 8.11.2000 and 28.11.2000 in favour of respondent no. 3. The said sale deeds were executed by respondent no. 4 after 2.11.2000 which is the date of cancellation of the said power of attorney. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner on 27.7.2015 filed an objection along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the Consolidation Officer under section 9-A(2) of the Act on the ground that he may be recorded as tenure holder ignoring the registered sale deeds dated 8.11.2000 and 28.11.2000 executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent no. 3, being a void document as they were executed after cancellation of the power of attorney. The explanation shown for condonation of the delay was to the effect petitioner came to know about the sale deeds in 2015 when he received a notice in a case filed by respondent no. 3 under section 12 of the Act, for mutation of his name on the basis of aforesaid sale deeds. 5. The Consolidation Officer considered the petitioner's objection and rejected it vide order dated 19.5.2016 as barred by limitation, holding therein that notification under section 9 of the Act had already been issued on 29.1.2011 in respect of the village in question and the objection was filed with a delay of about 4 years, for which no sufficient cause has been shown. 6. Challenging the order dated 19.5.2016 of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner preferred Revision No. 81/145 of 2017-18, Manjeet Singh Vs. 6. Challenging the order dated 19.5.2016 of the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner preferred Revision No. 81/145 of 2017-18, Manjeet Singh Vs. Tajendra Singh, under section 48(1) of the Act, which too was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 20.7.2018 affirming the order of the Consolidation Officer. 7. Assailing the orders impugned, submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner had no knowledge of the aforesaid sale deeds dated 8.11.2000 and 28.11.2000 in favour of respondent no. 3 and these sale deeds were executed after cancellation of the power of attorney on 2.11.2000. The petitioner came to know about the sale deeds only in 2015 when he received notice in the case filed by respondent no. 3 under section 12 of the Act for mutation and immediately the objection was filed. According to the learned counsel, the delay was thus satisfactorily explained in filing the objection. 8. Next contention of the counsel for petitioner is that the sale deeds executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent no. 3 dated 8.11.2000 and 28.11.2000 are void and the consolidation authorities had power to ignore the sale deeds in recording name of the petitioner over the land in question. 9. I have considered the submissions as raised and also gone through the record carefully. 10. It is apparent from the record that objection of the petitioner under section 9-A(2) of the Act, was filed after a lapse of four years from the date of issuance of notification under section 9 of the Act and thus it was clearly time barred. Even otherwise on merits, objection of the petitioner cannot be allowed as the sale deeds executed by respondent no. 4 in favour of respondent no. 3 cannot be said to be void but can be said to be voidable document. The Consolidation authorities do have power to ignore the sale deeds which are void ab-initio but could not ignore the sale deeds which are not void and are voidable. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case as indicated above, the proper remedy available to the petitioner was/is to file a suit before the competent civil court for cancellation of the above sale deeds. 12. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned rejecting the objection of the petitioner under section 9-A(2) of the Act passed by the consolidation authorities. 12. There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the orders impugned rejecting the objection of the petitioner under section 9-A(2) of the Act passed by the consolidation authorities. 13. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.