CHOTKAUNU Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed objection Under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to the amendment by Act VIII of 1963. That objection was disposed of by the Consolidation Officer by an order dated the 24th of February, 1963 contained in Annexure 1. The Petitioner went up in appeal and the appeal was decided by the Additional Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on the 16th of March, 1963. The Petitioner was dissatisfied even by this order and he filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who decided the revision application against him on the 17th of August, 1963. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari for the quashing of the three orders. There is a prayer for a writ of mandamus also which need not be detailed at this stage.

(2.) IN the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to the amendment by Act VIII of 1963 there was a second appeal provided against the order of the (Additional) Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and from the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation a revision could be filed to the Director of Consolidation. The Petitioner thought that after the amendment of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act by Act VIII of 1963 which came into force on the 8th March, 1963, as the appeal by the Additional Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was decided on the 16th of March, 1963, the provision of the second appeal stood deleted and as such a revision application only was maintainable as provided under the amended provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act.

(3.) IN order to appreciate this argument, we have to take into consideration the provisions of Sub -section (1) of Section 47 of Act VIII of 1963 which reads as follows: