JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. Though the case has been taken up in revised list no one appeared for respondent No. 2.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purpose of the case are that village was notified for consolidation operations in 1962. The petitioner filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming Sirdari rights over the land in dispute which was dismissed by Consolidation Officer. Appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation.
4. Under a misconception that since proceedings were initiated under the unamended Act which provided for a Second Appeal before Deputy Director of Consolidation and thereafter a revision before Director of Consolidation, the petitioner moved an application dated 17.12.1968 for converting the revision into the Second Appeal which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on the same day he decided the revision treating it to be an appeal. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision which came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 5.7.1982 as not maintainable.
5. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the proceedings were started under the un-amended Act as such they would be governed by the procedure and forum prescribed by the un-amended Act and the revision was wrongly rejected as not maintainable.
6. Under the un-amended Act Section 11 (2) and 21 (5) provided for second appeals to the Deputy Director of Consolidation against the appellate order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation.
7. Section 48 provided for a revision to the Director of Consolidation from the decision of Deputy Director of Consolidation. However, by Amending Act VIII of 1963, the provision for filing second appeal was repealed. Existing Section 48 was also repealed and was re-enacted conferring revisional power on the Director of consolidation to look into the correctness, propriety or legality of the orders passed by subordinate authority.
8. The main question for consideration in this case is whether a revision was maintainable before the Director of Consolidation as was provided by Section 48 of the unamended Act against an order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Second Appeal even after the amendment brought in the statute by amending Act VIII of 1963, or the proceedings would be governed by amended Act and no further revision would be maintainable.
9. In the case of Lal Singh and another v. Commissioner and Director of Consolidation, Meerut Division, Meerut, 1964 AWR 68 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the aforesaid question, held that orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation before 8th March, 1963 exercising appellate power were amendable to revisional jurisdiction of Director of Consolidation or Deputy Director of Consolidation conferred with the power of Director of Consolidation. However, orders passed after 8th March 1963 were not revisable by the Director.
10. This opinion of the Division Bench was based on the fact that orders passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation before 8.3.1963 were orders passed as subordinate authorities and as such were amenable to revisional jurisdiction conferred upon Director of Consolidation or Deputy Director of Consolidation conferred with the powers of Director of Consolidation, however the orders passed after 8.3.1963 were not revisable by the Directors for after passing of Act VIII of 1963, the Deputy Director of Consolidation were not subordinate to the Directors of Consolidation, in view of notification No. 1502-CH/I-E- 132-63 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (ii) of Section 44, conferring the powers of Section 48 vested in Director of Consolidation upon all the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Bench was of the view that after amendment of Section 48 by amending Act VIII of 1963, powers of Director to revise an order was conferred upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation, and there was nothing to suggest that Deputy Director of Consolidation was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Section 48 of the amended act.
11. The correctness of the decision in the case of Lal Singh (supra) came up for consideration by a Full Bench in the case of Prem Chandra v. Deputy Director 1966 ALJ 641. The Full Bench held that revision against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation even after 8.3.1963 would be maintainable and would be governed by un-amended Section 48. The correctness of the decision of the full bench was again considered by a larger bench in the case of Gauri Shankar v. Sidhanath Tripathi 1968 ALJ 933. The larger bench by a majority overruled the full bench decision rendered in Prem Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation ( supra ). Interpretating the transitory provision contained in Section 47 of the amending Act of 1963 the larger bench opined that a decision given by the Settlement Officer Consolidation or Deputy Director of Consolidation on or after 8.3.1963 would be governed by amended act and accordingly a revision and not a second appeal would lie from the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation.
12. In the present case, the settlement Officer consolidation decided the appeal of the petitioner on 16.1.1967 which was initially challenged by him by filing revision. Subsequently, under some misconception the petitioner moved an application dated 17.2.1968 for converting it into an appeal, on the same day Deputy Director of Consolidation converted the revision into an appeal and decided the same,
13. From the aforesaid settled legal position, it is clear that after 8.3.1963 no second appeal was maintainable and only a revision could have been filed. The petitioner though initially filed a revision but under some misconceived notion of law got it converted into Second appeal though the same was not maintainable.
14. In any view of the matter the case of the petitioner was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits. It does not make much difference whether it was decided as a Second Appeal or a revision. The only question is whether the petitioner had a further remedy of filing a revision before the Director of Consolidation against the order dated 12.7.1968 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation deciding the proceedings treating it to be a Second Appeal. In view of the decision of the larger bench in the case of Gauri Shakar v. Sidhnath Tiwari ( supra ) the revision against the order dated 17.2.1968 would not be maintainable and has rightly been dismissed.
15. In view of foregoing discussions, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.