JUDGMENT

B.N. Nigam, J. - Srimati Tulsa and another filed Writ Petition No. 596 of 1963 under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20th August, 1963 passed by the District Director of Consolidation, Rae Bareli copy of which is annexure 3 with the petition. We may here point out that the name of opposite-party No. 1 does not appear to have been correctly mentioned. The officer purported to act in exercise of his powers as a Director of Consolidation and the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. Act V of 1954) does not envisage any officer by the name of District Director of Consolidation.

2. In the petition it was stated that plot No. 1206 of village Panhauna, Pargana Inhauna, Distt. Rae Bareli was entered in the name of Mata Prasad who left only two daughters, the present petitioners. The Khata was not ancestral. During the consolidation proceedings the petitioners applied for entry of their names in place of Mata Prasad. Opposite-party No. 2 filed an objection and claimed to be in possession since long. Three other persons also filed objection whose claim was rejected by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioner's claim was accepted. Opposite-party No. 2 filed an appeal, then a second appeal and finally a revision application before opposite-party No. 1 on 17th May, 1963 and this revision application was allowed, hence the writ petition.

3. The petition came up for hearing before the learning Chief Justice and he was of opinion that the abolition of the office of the Deputy Director did not affect the question of his subordination to the Director and that a Director may revise an order passed by the Deputy Director even under the amended Section 48 (as amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963). He further recorded the opinion that there was nothing manifestly wrong or illegal in the impugned order as he had found that Ram Saran had become a sirdar because of his being in cultivatory possession in the year 1359 Fasli. Against that order, Smt. Tulsa and another have come up in special appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The first contention of the learned counsel is that Sri G.M. Murtaza could not have heard a revision against the order of Sri. K.S. Tripathi as both of them were invested with the power of a Deputy Director. It appears to us that there is some slight confusion. This second appeal was decided by Sri. K.S. Tripathi on 19.2.1963. It is conceded by the learned counsel that on that date a revision against that order was entertain able under the provisions of Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (U.P. Act V of 1954). It is further conceded by the learned counsel that the amendments introduced by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 do not take away the right of revision which was available against this order dated 19.2.1963. That being so, a revision application could be preferred on 17th May, 1963 in the court of any officer vested with the powers of a Director under the Government Notification dated 15.4.1963 (Notification No. 1502-CH/IE-132-63 dated April 16, 1963) published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated April 27, 1963 Part I at page 789 does not affect any other powers which he might be enjoying under any other notification. The fact remains that on 17th May, 1963 the officer before whom this revision application was filed had the powers of a Director. We are, therefore, of opinion that the revision application was preferred before a competent authority.

5. The learned counsel has urged with reference to the definitions of 'Deputy Director, Consolidation' and 'District Deputy Director of Consolidation' in sub-Section (4-A) and (4-B) of Section 3 of U.P. Act V of 1954 that the Collector of the District is only District Deputy Director, Consolidation. We are unable to see any reason for holding that this in any manner restricts the power of the State Government to confer on the Deputy Commissioner or the Collector the powers of a Director of C