S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) This case has come before us on a reference by a learned single Judge. The point referred is: "Is a Deputy Director Consolidation 'subordinate authority' within the meaning of Sec. 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act?
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the question referred are that during the consolidation proceedings Budh Singh, Respondent No. 5, filed an objection to the statement of proposals Under Sec. 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. His objection was allowed on 7th of April, 1962. Man Singh, Respondent No. 4, preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). This appeal was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred against the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director (Consolidation) on 10th of August, 1962, allowed the second appeal. After the decision of this second appeal, Budh Singh filed a revision. This revision was allowed on 23rd of March, 1963. The order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowing the second appeal was set aside and the case was remanded. After remand, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) prepared a fresh schedule on 11th of September, 1963. Aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Man Singh filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 4th of January, 1968, quashed the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) dated 11th of September, 1963 and directed him to decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) decided the second appeal and allowed it on 16th of October, 1968. Man Singh again felt aggrieved and filed a revision. This' revision was partly allowed by a Deputy Director (Consolidation) on 10th of July, 1969. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 10th of July, 1969.
(3.) When the case was listed for final disposal before a learned Single Judge, two points were pressed. Firstly, it was urged that the second appeal having been decided on 16th of October, 1968, no revision lay against it. Secondly, it was urged that a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not an authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation within the meaning of Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence his order was not amenable to be revised by the Director of Consolidation. In support of the abovementioned submissions the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1384 of 1965 - -Ram Pratap and Anr. v/s. Deputy Director Consolidation - -dated 9 -4 -1969, in which it was held that according to the explanation added in the year 1968 to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Sec. 48 of the Act. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Sri Justice Satish Chandra) considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He noticed the various decisions on the point and found that there was a conflict of opinion as to whether a Deputy Director (Consolidation) was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Sec. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He referred to the cases bearing on the subject and observed: ...it is a little difficult Jo accept that, though the Legislature eliminated the second appeals, that is to say, the Deputy Director was no longer to decide a second appeal on facts, but a revision was provided on facts, yet, in relation to an order parsed in a second appeal, though it was expressly made revisable in view of the proviso to Sec. 47 of the amending Act, the Effect of that proviso was taken away by intending that the phrase 'subordinate authority' used in Sec. 48 was not to include a Deputy Director. He opined that the phrase 'subordinate authority' was used in Sec. 48 to confer a comprehensive jurisdiction upon the Director of Consolidation an respect of all authorities who have to do consolidation work in any capacity or at any level. The learned Judge also opined that the explanation added to Sec. 48 by Act No. XVIII of 1968 is not exhaustive, but only descriptive.;