DESAI, C. J. :- In this petition our brothers Beg and Sharma have referred to a larger Bench the following questions :

"1(a). On the facts and circumstances of the case was a revision against the order of the Deputy Director dated 22-3-1963 maintain able in the present case?

(b) If so, would such a revision he governed by amended Section 48 or Section 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963?

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, was the Deputy Director, Bara Banki competent to hear a revision petition against the order of the Deputy Director Camp Bara Banki dated 22-3-1963, passed in the second appeal by the latter ?

3. Is the order of the Deputy Director Bara Banki dated 14-6-1963 depositing the aforesaid revision a legally correct order' ?

Similar questions have been referred in the associated petitions.

The material facts in this petition are as follows :

An order under S. 10 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed by a Consolidation Officer on 17-10-1962. Under section 11(1) an appeal lay from an order passed under S. 10 to a Settlement Officer and such an appeal was filed and was decided by a Settlement Officer on 21-12-1962. Under section 11(2) as it stood prior to the amendment in S. 11 by Act No. 8 of 1963 which came into force on 8-3-1963 a second appeal lay from a Settlement Officer's order to a Deputy Director and a second appeal was filed prior to 8-3-1963 and was decided by him on 22-3-1963. Section 48 also was amended by Act No. 8 of 1963 : prior to its amendment the Director had the power to revise a Deputy Director's order on a ground similar to a ground on which a High Court can revise an order of a subordinate civil Court under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since the amendment the Director has the power to revise an order of any "subordinate authority" on the ground that it is incorrect, illegal or improper Section 48 as it existed prior to its amendment on 8-3-1963 will be referred to as "the old section" or "the unamended section" and the section as it stands now, as "the new section" or "the amended section." The petitioner, who felt aggrieved by the Deputy Director's order dated 22-3-1963 filed an application for revision of it to the District Deputy Director on whom the Director's powers have been conferred. A Deputy Director, also exercising the Director's powers, rejected the petition on 14-6-1963 on the ground that it was not maintainable under the amended section 48 because a Deputy Director is not an authority subordinate to the Director under the amended section. The prayer sought in this petition is for certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Director dated 14-6-1963 and the earlier orders of the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer and any other writ direction or order that may be necessary.

2. The material facts in Writ Petition No. 338 of 1963 are these. A statement of proposals prepared under S. 21 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act was confirmed under section 23 on 30-3-1961. An objection could be filed under section 21 against it but no objection had been filed by opposite-party No. 1. The confirmation of the statement was followed by delivery of possession to the tenure-holders of the land given in their chaks. Thereafter on 12-5-1962 the opposite-party filed an objection against the land given in his chak before a Settlement Officer, who on 19-2-1963 forwarded it to a Deputy Director under section 21 (6). Section 21 was another section that was amended by Act No. 8 of 1963 with effect from 8-3-1963. Under the old section an appeal lay from an order on an objection filed against a statement of proposals to a settlement Officer and a second appeal lay from the Settlement Officer's order to a Deputy Director and the Deputy Director was authorized by sub-section (6) also to revise an order of a Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer in the interest of justice suo motu.

While the matter was pending before the Deputy Director