JUDGMENT S.K. Sagahla, Chairman - This is a revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad dated April 1, 1980 confirming the order dated September 28, 1979 passed by the S.D.O. in a case under Section 33/39 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Subedar and others applied for correction of the Khatauni on the ground that they have been declared Sirdar of the land in dispute during consolidation operations and that the Amaldaramad of the order dated October 23, 1961 passed by the Consolidation Officer was not made in the revenue records. They hence pray that the entries should be corrected and Amaldaramad made. The Naib Tahsildar made enquiry and submitted his report recommending that the entry in question should be corrected. The S.D.O. rejected the application for correction holding that the applicants should have got the Amaldaramad done during consolidation operations and that after close of the consolidation operations the entries are final and cannot be corrected. Thereafter, the matter went up in revision to the Additional Commissioner. Who upheld the order of the S.D.O., giving rise to the present revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist stated that the rights of the revisionists have admittedly been adjudicated upon during by the consolidation operations and that the judgment of the consolidation authorities creates a bar of res judicata against the opposite parties. He argued that Amaldaramad of the order should have been made as already directed in the body of the judgment, as such non-compliance of the order amounted to a clerical mistake and omission. He therefore, contended that the mistake or omission is thus liable to be corrected. 4. The learned counsel for Abhai Ram (tenant of G.S.) argued that the order is an ex-parte order in favour of the revisionist and the record cannot be corrected after the close of the consolidation operations. He also argued that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act bars these proceedings. 5. 4. The learned counsel for Abhai Ram (tenant of G.S.) argued that the order is an ex-parte order in favour of the revisionist and the record cannot be corrected after the close of the consolidation operations. He also argued that Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act bars these proceedings. 5. The learned D.G.C.(R.) submitted that the revisionist claim to have perfected Sirdari rights under the order of the Consolidation Officer but no right can be perfected on the Gaon Sabha land on the ground of possession as provided under Section 210 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (Amendment Act, 1975). He, therefore, contended that the existing entries cannot be corrected. The learned counsel for the revisionist, in reply, stated the amendment would not affect the decision taken prior to the amendment Act coming into operation. 6. The entry in the Khatauni for the years 1383 to 1385 F., extracts of which are on the file, shows that Abhai Ram and Munshi Lal are the recorded tenure-holders of plot in dispute. There is an order of the consolidation officer dated October 23, 1961 on the record where under it was directed that the names of the Goan Sabha and of Munshi Lal, son of Lakhpat, Subedar and Rajendra Singh be recorded against the plots in dispute. It was specifically directed that the Amaldaramad be made accordingly. It would appear that Amaldaramad of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated October 23, 1961 has not been done. The revisionists have moved the revenue courts after a considerable lapse of time on February 3, 1979 ordinarily, the revisionists are expected to be alert in protecting their interests and to have moved for implementation of the order of the consolidation officer soon after the order was passed and had come to their notice. But the fact remains that legal order was passed by the Consolidation officer in 1961 which has not been reflected in the revenue records so far, what ever the reason. 7. The two lower courts have taken the view that the revenue courts are barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act from making any change in the consolidation records, Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, is however relevant in this context. 7. The two lower courts have taken the view that the revenue courts are barred under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act from making any change in the consolidation records, Sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, is however relevant in this context. It reads as follows:- "27(3); After the issue of notification under Section 52, the Collector shall, instead of the map, field book and record of rights previously maintained by him, maintain the map, field book and record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (i) and provisions of Section 28 and 33 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall apply to the maintenance of such map, field-book and record of rights, as the case may be and the provisions of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 relating to the maintenance and correction of such map, field-book and record of rights shall mutatis mutandis apply." It will be noticed that this section specifically provides for the applicability of Sections 28 and 33 of the L.R. Act to the annual records prepared during the consolidation operations. Section 33 of the U.P.L.R. Act provides for maintenance of records, incorporation of all changes and correction of errors and omissions in the revenue records in accordance with Section 39, L.R. Act. As such the bar of Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act will not apply to cases of correction of errors or omissions in records prepared under consolidation. The position has been made quite clear in the Full Bench decision of the Board reported in 1977 R.D. 234 wherein a similar view has been taken. 8. In view of the foregoing, there is no bare on implementing a judicial order passed by the Consolidation Officer authorized by law. While it is strange that the revisionists did not move earlier than they did for correction of the entry there is nothing on record to show that any substantive changes or developments have taken place during the intervening period which may have adversely affected their interests as adjudicated in the said order dated December 23, 1961. There is no evidence of the order having been upset in appeal or challenged in some appropriate tribunal, including by the Gaon Sabha. In view of this, it is only proper that steps be taken to implement the order even at this late stage. There is no evidence of the order having been upset in appeal or challenged in some appropriate tribunal, including by the Gaon Sabha. In view of this, it is only proper that steps be taken to implement the order even at this late stage. 9. It has further been argued on behalf of the Gaon Sabha by the learned D.G.C.(R.) that even though the Sirdari rights of the revisionists have been ostensibly perfected in the order of consolidation officer, no rights can be perfected on the Gaon Sabha land in view of the amended provisions of Section 210, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act as enacted by U.P. Act 1977, which came into force on January 28, 1977 and provides for rights accruing under adverse possession against a Bhumidhar and an Asami but not against the Gaon Sabha. The order of the Consolidation Officer in the present case was however passed much before the amended Section 210, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force and it, therefore, not affected by it. 10. In view of the foregoing analysis, I am of opinion that the learned lower courts were not justified in refusing to correct the revenue records in accordance with the order of the Consolidation Officer dated October 23, 1961. Being a valid judicial order, it should have been implemented soon after it was passed and should in any case be implemented now. Hence, the revision is accordingly accepted and it is directed that Amaldaramad be made in accordance with the order of the Consolidation Officer dated October 23, 1961.