Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) This petition is directed against the order of the Dy. Director, Consolidation dated 23 -1 -1967.
(2.) The statement of proposals was published on 28 -11 -1962 in the village. Objections were filed and were decided by the Consolidation Officer on 8 -2 -1963. Later on it appears that the Consolidation Officer passed another order on 14 -12 -1963 making certain alterations in the allotment. On appeal the Settlement Officer on 29 -11 -1964 set aside the order dated 14 -12 -1963 and directed the Consolidation Officer to make a reference to the Dy. Director, Consolidation Under Sec. 48(3) of the Act. Consequently, the Consolidation Officer made a report which was approved by the Settlement Officer and was submitted to the Dy. Director, Consolidation. By the impugned order the Dy. Director, Consolidation has accepted the report and changed the allotment of chaks appropriately.
(3.) For the Petitioners the only point raised is of jurisdiction. It was urged that the statement Under Sec. 20 of the Act having been published prior to the coming into force of UP Act No. 8 of 1963 on 8 -3 -1963 the Act as unamended will continue to govern the proceedings in the instant case. For this he has placed relience upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Prem Chandra v/s. Dy Director Consolidation, 1966 AWR 291 as well as on a decision of learned single Judge of this Court in Lalji v/s. Settlement Officer, 1966 RD 206. In this case the learned single Judge relying upon the Full Bench decision of Prem Chand held that where proceedings upto the stage of Sec. 23 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act had been concluded before the amendment the provisions of Sec. 48(3) will not apply. In this case the effect of Sec. 47(2) of the amendment Act 8 of 1963 was not considered. The case is distinguishable on the ground that in the present case proceedings Under Sec. 21 were pending and no final orders Under Sec. 23 had been passed.;