S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel appearing for caveators.
(2.) The dispute in the instant petition revolves round the inaction in effectuating the order dated 8.4.1988 passed by Consolidation Officer unto this date. It is stated that the application for Amaldaramad is already lingering prior to issuance of notification under section 52 of the U.P.C.H. Act. It is further submitted that revisional court allowed the revision and set aside the order dated 17.2.1995 on the ground that two applications were filed and in both the applications, prayer was made for giving effect to the order.
(3.) From a scrutiny of the order of Deputy Director Consolidation, it clearly transpires that it suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as once the order dated 8.4.1988 passed by Consolidation officer has attained finality, there is no valid reason to forbear from giving effect to it. The technical ground on which it was refused to be effectuated cannot be countenanced.;