Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED against an order of the Consolidation Officer the Appellant filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer. The same was dismissed on 16 -12 -1967. Feeling aggrieved the Appellant filed a second appeal before the Distt. Dy. D.C. On 20 -641968 the Dy. D.C dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not properly presented by the counsel and that no second appeal lay. The Dy. Director also declined to convert the second appeal into a revision and to treat it as a revision. Aggrieved the Appellant filed a writ petition. A learned single Judge upheld the Appellant's plea that there was no defect in presentation. Shri Mathur the counsel had authority by virtue of the Vakalatnama filed by his before the S.O. (C.) to file a second appeal. It is also held that the Appellant himself had also signed the memorandum of appeal and that was enough to sustain the validity of its presentation. He held that the presentation of the appeal was valid and proper. In respect of the second aspect the learned Single Judge held that a second appeal was presentable to the Distt. Dy. D.C. In the present case the second appeal was presented to the Distt. Dy. D.C. The Appellant has not shown that the Distt. Dy. D.C. who received the second appeal of the Appellant was also authorised to entertain the revision application Under Section 48. That being so a second appeal presented to the Distt. Dy. D.C. could not be treated as a revision application presented to the Director of Consolidation or a duly authorised Dy. Director. It is also held that the Dy. Director to whom the second appeal was transferred had the limited jurisdiction to dispose of the second appeal as a second appeal and acting within that, limited jurisdiction he pad no power to treat the second appeal as a revision Under Section 48. On these findings the writ petition was dismissed.
(2.) WE have no hesitation in agreeing with the view of the learned Single judge that in the circumstances of the case there was no factual or legal defect in the presentation of the second appeal by Shri Mathur. We are, however, unable to sustain the view in regard to the powers of the Dy. Director to convert the second appeal into a revision. Under the proviso to Section 47 of the amending Act 8 of 1963 no second appeals lay or could be instituted after the coming into force if the amending Act on 8 -3 -1963. After 8 -3 -1963, decisions of the S.O. (C) could be assailed only by way of a revision to the Director of Consolidation Section 48. In the present case the Appellant has challenged the order of the S.O. (C). The memorandum of second appeal was duly entertained by the Distt. Dy. D.C. in the ordinary course of business the memorandum was transferred to the Dy. D.C. for disposal. Since after 8 -3 -1963 no second appeals were entertainable coupled with the fact that in the present case the second appeal as filed somewhere in 1967 long after the vanishing of the second appellate jurisdiction it can be presumed that the Dy. D.C. to whom the present second appeal was transferred for disposal could toot have possessed any authority to entertain or dispose of second appeals. Under the Act the Dy. Director was authorised to exercise his power conferred on him by Section 48. In our opinion, the by Director had the requisite authority to decide the case as a revision only. When the second appeal was transferred to him he had full season of the case, if ion finding that the memorandum was wrongly described as a second appeal and was entertainable Validly in law only as a revision. We have no doubt that he had the requisite jurisdiction and power to effect the conversion of the second appeal into a revision. It has not been found that if the memorandum of appeal is treated as a revision it would have been barred by time.
(3.) IT is well settled that the description given to a memorandum of appeal is not final and binding on the court; If a litigant being under an impression that a second appeal lies, files as second appeal, the Court is not bound to treat it a second appeal. If it finds that in law no second appeal lies but in its place a revision, in such circumstance it is in the interests of justice fit and proper to convert the appeal into a revision and to hear and decide It as such. These are merely ministerial matters. In the absence of a statutory prohibition, the authority possessing the power of deciding a revision, has, by implication, the power to effect the conversion of memorandum of appeal into a revision and then to hear and decide it as such. In our opinion, the Dy. Director was in error in holding that he had no jurisdiction to convert the second appeal into a revision. He ought to have permitted it and then to have decided the matter on merits.;