The Director of Consolidation has the power to correct errors in the consolidation proceedings under section 35 of the Act, even if no objection has been filed under section 10(3). The provisions of section 35 of the Act override the provisions of section 10A of the Act.

Birendra Prasad Sinha, J.- The petitioner has challenged the ORDER :s contained in Annexures-l and 2 passed by the Director of Consolidation in Revision Case No. 1060 of 1977 and the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Appeal Case No. 185 of 1976 respectively.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner relates to survey plot no. 238 in village Chaturi Pusas, Anchal Musahari in the district of Muzaffarpur. It appears that certain ORDER :s were passed by the Chakbandi Officer on 22.5.1976 under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmention Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in respect of plot nos. 239 and 240. Plot No. 238 was not the subject matter of decision in that case. In appear under section 10 (6) of the Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation decided that plot no. 238 belonged to one Mossomat Sukani on which she had a house and Bari. He directed that the name of Mossomat Sukani be entered in the relevant records. It may be stated here that Mossomat Sukani was not a party before the Consolidation Officer but she filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Consolidation in which the above ORDER :was passed. The petitioner filed an application under section 35 of the Act challenging that the appellate authority could not have passed that ORDER :in favour of Mossomat Sukani inasmuch as she was not a party before the Consolidation Officer and had not filed objection under section 10 (3) of the Act and that plot no. 238 was not the subject matter of the objection under section 10 (4) of the Act. The revisional authority by ORDER :contained in Annexure-I held that the revisional survey records in which the name of Mossomat Sukani had been recorded, had been corrected without notice under section 108A of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In exercise of his power under section 35 of the Act he held that Mossomat Sukani had been recorded as Sikmidar in the revisional record of rights and was entitled to be recorded as such. The revisional authority has, therefore, affirmed the ORDER :passed by the appellate authority.

3. Mr. Vindhya Keshari Kumar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that neither the appellate authority nor the revisional authority could pass such an ORDER :in respect of plot no. 238 in absence of any objection filed by Mossomat Sukani under section 10 (3) of the Act. He relied upon a Bench decision of this Court in Jagarnath Thakur v. The State of Bihar and others (1984 B.B.C.J. 140 1984 : PLJR 310) in which it was held that if no objection was taken under section 10 of the Act then no objection could be taken subsequently. It was also submitted that the provisions of section 35 of the Act cannot override the provisions contained in section 10 of the Act and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case even the revisional authority could not have passed the impugned ORDER :under section 35 of the Act.

4. Section 10 of the Act provides for publication of register of lands and settlement of principles and objection thereon. Within 45 days of the publication of' the statement of principles prepared under section 9 A any per, son can file an objection in respect thereof before the Assistant Consolidation Officer disputing the' correctness and nature of entries in the records or in the statement of principles under section 10 (2) of the Act. Such objections are to be decided by the Assistant Consolidation Officer after hearing the persons interested. A person aggrieved by an ORDER :of the Assistant Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer under sub-section (3), (4) or (5) of section 10 may file an appeal before the Assistant Director of Consolidation under section 10 (6) of the Act. It is true that in the present case it appears that no objection was filed by Mossomat Sukani under section 10 (2) of the Act before the Consolidation Officer but she filed an appeal under section 10( 6) of the Act challenging the correctness of the entries in resp