Gulati, J. - (1.) THE petitioner Baldeo filed an objection under Sec tion 20 of the U .P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The objection was filed beyond time. The Consolida tion Officer held that as the objection had been filed after the confir mation of the provisional consolidation schemes under Section 23 of the Act, it was not maintainable. The petitioner filed an appeal. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) held that the objection was time-barred and the delay had not been condoned by the Consolidation Officer and no appeal lay against the order refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In his opinion the pro per course for the petitioner was to file a revision under Section 48. He accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. There after the petitioner filed two revisions one against the order of Consolidation Officer and the other against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Both these revisions were combined and were rejected by a common order dated January 25, 1969, in the fol lowing words: "The C. O. has not condoned the delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of the objection made under Section 20 of the U. P. C. H. Act as the Chaks were confirmed under Section 23 of the U.P. C. H. Act. The delivery of possession was also given. Therefore, in my opinion, both the revisions have become infruc-tuous and are not maintainable. Therefore they are rejected".
(2.) AT one time the view of this court was that after the confirma tion of Chaks under Section 23 of the Act, the proceedings under Sec tion 20 do not survive. This view has since been upset by a Full Bench of this Court in Sita and others v. State of U.P. and others 1969 A.L.J. 144 where it has been held that even if the scheme has been finalised un der Section 23, the objection under Section 20 does not become in fructuous. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, was clearly wrong in rejecting the petitioner's revisions. In the end the petition is allowed, the order of the .Deputy Director of Consolidation dated January 24, 1969, is quashed. He is directed to restore the revision applications of the petitioner to their original numbers and to decide them afresh in accordance with the law and the observations made there under.;