After 8.3.1963, no second appeal was maintainable and only a revision could have been filed.

( 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 However, by Amending Act VIII of 1963, the provision for filing second appeal was repealed. Existing Section 48 was also repealed and was re-enacted conferring revisional power on the Director of consolidation to look into the correctness, propriety or legality of the orders passed by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 al