JUDGMENT : Case has been called out in the revised list. No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for respondent no. 7 as well as Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are present. 1. Due to frequent adjournments sought by the counsel for the petitioner on various grounds, this Court vide its order dated 23.2.2018 directed that the case be listed peremptorily. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 23.2.2018, case has been listed today peremptorily. However, counsel for the petitioner has again sent an illness slip requesting that the case be adjourned for the day because of his illness. As the case has been listed peremptorily in pursuance to the order dated 23.2.2018 passed by this Court, the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner is rejected. 2. In the revenue and consolidation records, one Angan Lal son of Godhe Lal was shown as Chakdar No. 13 and one Anganoo son of Gudhanoo was shown as Chakdar No. 36. During the consolidation proceedings held in the village, Chakdar No. 13 i.e. Angan Lal was allotted three chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer while Chakdar No. 36 i.e. Anganoo was allotted two chaks at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer. The claim of the petitioner before the Consolidation Authorities as well as in the present writ petition is that Angan Lal and Anganoo i.e. Chakdar Nos. 13 and 36 were the same person and the petitioner is referred by both names in the village. In view of his said claim, the petitioner filed objections under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953') before the Consolidation Officer stating that Angan Lal and Anganoo were the same person and they have been erroneously shown as different chak holders in the provisional consolidation scheme prepared under the Act and, therefore, the petitioner has been allotted five chaks without any prior approval of the concerned Deputy Director of Consolidation which is contrary to the principles enunciated under Section 19 of the Act, 1953. On the objections of the petitioner, Case No. 13 was registered before the Consolidation Officer who disposed of the same vide his order dated 7.2.1996. However, even after the order dated 7.2.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the total chaks allotted cumulatively to Chakdar Nos. 13 and 36 still remained 5. On the objections of the petitioner, Case No. 13 was registered before the Consolidation Officer who disposed of the same vide his order dated 7.2.1996. However, even after the order dated 7.2.1996 passed by the Consolidation Officer, the total chaks allotted cumulatively to Chakdar Nos. 13 and 36 still remained 5. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation which was numbered as Appeal No. 337 and was dismissed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide his order dated 23.8.1996 on the ground that as the petitioner had not taken any steps for correction of records at the appropriate stage, therefore, his claim that chakdar Nos. 13 and 36 are the same person is liable to be rejected. Against the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation i.e. respondent no. 1 which was registered as Revision No. 148/272. Revision No. 148/272 was decided by respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 19.1.1998 whereby respondent no. 1 modified the chaks allotted to the petitioner but the total number of chaks cumulatively allotted to chakdar Nos. 13 and 36 still remained 5. The orders dated 7.2.1996, 23.8.1996 and 19.1.1998 passed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively have been challenged in the present writ petition. 3. The contentions of the petitioner in the memorandum of writ petition are mere reiteration of the contentions raised by him before the Consolidation Authorities that the petitioner is referred in the village both as Angan Lal and Anganoo and similarly his father is also referred in the village both as Godhe Lal and Gudhanoo and therefore chak holder nos. 13 and 36 were the same person and under the law, should not have been cumulatively allotted more than 3 chaks. It was contended by the petitioner before the Consolidation Authorities and has been contended in the writ petition that the arrangement made by the Consolidation Authorities are contrary to Section 19(1)(e) of the Act, 1953 as chak holder nos. 13 and 36 have been cumulatively allotted 5 chaks without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and therefore the orders dated 7.2.1996, 23.8.1996 and 19.1.1998 are liable to be quashed. 4. Considered the submissions of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition and the submissions of counsel for respondent no. 13 and 36 have been cumulatively allotted 5 chaks without prior approval of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and therefore the orders dated 7.2.1996, 23.8.1996 and 19.1.1998 are liable to be quashed. 4. Considered the submissions of the petitioner as stated in the writ petition and the submissions of counsel for respondent no. 7 as well as Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. A perusal of the records shows that no evidence was produced by the petitioner before the Consolidation Authorities nor any document has been annexed with the writ petition to show that Angan Lal and Anganoo are the same person, i.e. the petitioner, and Godhe Lal and Gudhanoo were also the same person i.e. the father of the petitioner, enabling any authority to reach a conclusion that Chakdar Nos. 13 and 36 were the same person. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the petitioner, the chakdar nos. 13 and 36 were the same person and therefore they should not have been cumulatively allotted more than 3 chaks cannot be accepted and is rejected. Further, as would be evident from the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, the petitioner had not taken any steps or instituted any proceedings for correction of records regarding his name. After the publication of the statement of principle under Section 8 and 8-A of the Act, the Assistant Consolidation Officer is liable to correct any mistakes in the records and the registers and if he fails to correct any such errors or mistakes, the concerned tenure holder is entitled to file objections under Section 9-A of the Act. On failure of the tenure holder to file any such objection, the same shall be barred subsequently under Section 11-A of the Act at any subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings. In view of the aforesaid also, the objections of the petitioner at the time of allotment (regarding mistakes in the record) was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected. Further, a perusal of Section 19(1)(e) of the Act shows that even though the Consolidation Authorities cannot allot more than 3 chaks to any tenure holder without prior approval in writing of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the second proviso to the aforesaid clause provides that the consolidation proceedings shall not be invalid merely because number of chaks allotted to a tenure holder exceeds three. In Kailash Shankar vs Upper Zilla Adhikari (1993) R.D. 68, it was held by this Court that the second proviso of Section 19(1)(e) of the Act, 1953 prevails over the first one. 5. For the aforesaid reason, there is no illegality in the orders dated 7.2.1996, 23.8.1996 and 19.1.1998 passed by respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 6. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.