JUDGMENT

Omprakash Trivedi, J. - These are four connected special appeals and arise from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 3rd December 1969 deciding Writ Petitions Nos. 636, 637, 638 and 648 all of 1967 filed in the following circumstances :

2. The dispute between the parties relates to plot Nos. 103/1 and 106-A. In the basic year Noor Mohd. and others were recorded as grove holder of these plots. An objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter called the Act) was filed by Salim Khan `who is respondent No. 8 of Spl. Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 of 1970 and respondent No. 1 of Spl. Appeals Nos. 97 and 98 of 1970. He claimed to be the grove holder of these plots exclusively and contested the title of persons whose names were recorded in the basic year. The Consolidation Officer upheld the 3 objection of Salim Khan hording him sole grove-holder of plot No. 106-A and cogrove-holder in grove plot No. 103/1 with Noor Mohd. and others. Two appeals were filed against this decision one by Salim Khan and another by Noor Mohd. Khan and another the settlement Officer (Consolidation) held Salim Khan to be the sole grove-holder of both the plots. Against this decision two revisions were filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. They were allowed. The decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was that neither Noor Mohd. Khan and others nor Salim Khan had any right in or title to the two plots; plot No. 103/1 was tank and plot No. 106-A was Banjar and these two plots became vested in the Gaon Sabha and that the names of Noor Mohd. Khan and others were in-correctly recorded. The names of Noor Mohd. Khan and others were ordered to be expunged and the name of Gaon Sabha was ordered to be substituted in the plots. It is against this decision that the aforesaid four Writ Petitions were filed, two of them by Noor Mohd. Khan and others and the other two by Salim Khan. All these four petitions while decided by the learned Single Judge by one judgment and it is this judgment, the correctness of which is questioned in the present special appeals before us. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that the Gaon Sabha not having filed objection under the Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation had no jurisdiction under Section 48 of the Act to decide the question of title in favour of Gaon Sabha not to the bar of Section 11-A of the Act. In this regard the learned single Judge also expressed the opinions that Gaon Sabha not having filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act within limitation the entries in the basic year obtaining in favour of Noor Mohd. Khan and others became final and could it, not be disturbed subsequently by the Deputy Director of Consolidation acting under Section 49 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri B. R. Gupta argued before us that the learned Single Judge was not correct in this view because Section 49 of the Act confers suo motu powers on the Deputy Director of Consolidation to correct any orders passed in consolidation proceedings by lower authorities. No doubt, Section 48 is in terms very widely worded and gives power to the Deputy Director to call for and examine record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of any order gassed by such authority in the case or proceedings and to make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. But we cannot lose sight of the provision contained in Section 11-A of the Act. Section 11-A is these terms :

"No question in respect of -

(i) claims to land.

(ii) ...........

(iii) ...........

relating to the consolidation area, which might or sought to have been raised under Section 9, but has not been-so raised,

shall be raised or heard at am subsequent stage of the consolidation proceedings".

3. The substance of the provision is that no person, who ha