R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) IN proceedings Under Section 12 -B of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (as the Act stood before its amendment in 1963), the Consolidation Officer made an order dated 19 -3 -1963 directing partition of the khata between the parties according to the shares specified by him in his order. An appeal against that order was filed by the Respondents, Sukhbir Singh and others, Under Section 12 -C of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 27 -5 -1963. The Petitioners applied in revision Under Section 48 of the Act and the revision application was dismissed on 7 -8 -1963 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that it was not maintainable under the Act as amended in 1963. The Petitioners pray for certiorari.
(2.) SHRI G.N. Verma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contends that the proviso to Section 47(1) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1963 was attracted in this case and that the revisional jurisdiction conferred by Section 48, as amended in 1963, came into play and consequently the view taken by the Deputy Director while declining to entertain the revision application was Erroneous. Reliance was placed by Learned Counsel upon the view expressed by a Full Bench of this Court in Gauri Shanker v. Sidhnath Tewari, 1968 AWR 770. It seems to me that the opinion of the Full Bench does not assist the Petitioners at all Section 47(1) of the Amendment Act, 1963 provides: (1) In units notified Under Section 4 of the Principal Act, prior to the date on which his Act comes into force, hereinafter referred to as the said date, all work in regard to or connected with consolidation operations - - (i) beyond the stage of publication of the statement of proposals Under Section 20 of the Principal Act, where, on or before the said date that statement had already been published; and (ii) upto and inclusive of the stage of confirmation of the statement of principles Under Section 18 of the Principal Act, where, on, or before the said date, notices Under Section 9 of the Principal Act had already issued; shall be conducted and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the Principal Act, as if this Act had not come into force: Provided that, as respects second appeals and revisions, which lay under the provision of the Principal Act, as it stood prior to its amendment by this Act, but had not been instituted before the said date, the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, shall apply and be deemed always to have applied as if this Act had been in force on all material dates. It is clear that the instant case is covered by Clause (ii) of Sub -section (1) of Section 47 and that the proviso does not apply. The proviso would have applied if a second appeal and revision lay under the provision of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment in 1963. No second appeal or revision lay against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) Under Section 12C of the unamended Act. On the contrary, Section 12 -C declared that the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) would be final and not open to question in a court of law. Section 48 of the Act, as it then stood empowered the Director of Consolidation to exercise revisional jurisdiction over an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. That jurisdiction was not conferred over an order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation).
(3.) THIS is, therefore, a case where it cannot be said that a second appeal or revision lay under the provisions of the unamended Act. The proviso to Section 47(1) is not attracted and the case had to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the unamended Act. As regards the unamended Act, when Section 12C clearly provided that the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) under that provision was final, the further remedy adopted by the Petitioners against that order was not available to them in law. The view taken by the Deputy Director in declining to entertain the revision application was perfectly sound and I am not satisfied that any ground has been made out for interference.;