DWIVEDI, J. : The petitioners question the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) Camp Jaunpur, dated March 27, 1963 and the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Jaunpur, dated August 6, 1963. The first order was passed in second appeal, while the second in revision under S. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act as amended in March 1963.

2. The petitioners lost in second appeal and then filed a revision which, as already stated, was dismissed by the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Jaunpur. They impleaded by oversight the Director (Consolidation), Varanasi instead of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) Jaunpur. The mistake was detected today, and they have made, an application for substituting the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Jaunpur in place of the Director of Consolidation. By a separate order I have allowed that application. The technical flaw is now removed.

3. The Dy. Director (Consolidation) Jaunpur dismissed the revision summarily because he thought that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) Camp, Jaunpur, who had decided the second appeal, was not subordinate to the Director (Consolidation).

4. Section 48 pertinently provides :

"(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any easy decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority …………………………

……………………………………….

3. Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may........refer the record of any Case, or proceeding to the Director of Consolidation for action under Sub-Section (1)",

The wording of S. 48 shows that a revision would be to the Director (Consolidation) from an order of any authority who is subordinate to him. In other analogous contexts the word 'subordinate' has been interpreted to mean judicial subordination. It seems to me that that restricted meaning should not be attached to the word 'subordinate' in S. 48. The language of the section suggests that the word 'subordinate' is used comprehensively : it means judicial or quasi judicial administrative subordination of an authority to the Director of Consolidation.

The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided by any subordinate authority as well as the record of any proceeding taken by the latter. The word 'proceedings' is wider than the word 'case', It may also include administrative proceedings.

5. No revision would lie under S. 48 from an order of an authority who is not subordinate, either judicially or quasi judicially or administratively, to the Director of Consolidation. In the instant case the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Camp Jaunpur, decided the second appeal against the petitioners on March 27, 1960, under S. 11(2) of the Act as it stood before its amendment in March 1963. The appeal was filed on July 25, 1902. There, is no doubt that if the appeal had been decided before the 1968 amendment, the appellate order could have been revised by the Director (Consolidation) under S. 48. It so happened, however, that the appeal was actually decided alter the 1963 amendment. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether the Deputy Director (Consolidation) Camp Jaunpur was an authority subordinate (us interpreted by me) to the Director (Consolidation). If he was so subordinate, then there is little doubt that his order could be revised by the Director (Consolidation) or his delegate : if, oil the other hand, he is not so subordinate, no revision would against his order to the Director (Consolidation) or his delegate, as held in the present case.

6. In determining whether he is so subordinate I shall refer only to the provisions of the. Act as amended in 1903 and the rules made thereunder.

7. Section 8 is the definition clause. Clauses (2-B), (3), (-3-A), (4), (4-A), (4-B) and (9) enumerate the various authorities comprised In the consolidation staff. Those authorities are Consolidation Lekhpal Consolidator, Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Dep