JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - This appeal arises out of consolidation proceedings. Aggrieved against the order dt. 23-3-1963 allowing a second appeal the Appellants filed a revision before the Commr. The Commr. held that the revision was not maintainable and dismissed it. The Appellants then instituted a writ petition in this Court. This Court held that the revision was maintainable. It sent the case back to the Commr. for deciding the revision on merits. The revision was disposed of by the Commr. on its merits on 18-12-1968. It was allowed and the order of the Dy. D.C. was set aside.

2. The Respondents then came to this Court by way of a writ petition. In support of the writ petition it was urged that in view of the Amending Act No. 18 of 1968, which introduced an explanation to Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act with retrospective effect no revision was maintainable against the decision of the Dy. DC. This contention was fully supported by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Singh v. Dy. D.C. 1970 AWR 838. The learned single Judge upheld the submission. He also held that the order of the Dy. D.C. did not disclose any error of law to call for any interference. On this finding