SHAKOOR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition objections have been filed under section 20 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act by the petitioner. These objections appear to have been finally decided in second appeal prior to 8-3-1963. As a matter of fact it is also clear from the records that a revision from the second appellate order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was filed before the Joint Director of Consolidation on 24-1-1963 long before 8-3-1963. This revision appears to have been filed beyond limitation. The matter was canvassed in the High Court and Mr. Justice R. L. Gulati vide his judgment dated 25-3-1968 remanded the case for decision on the merits to the Joint Director of Consolidation, on the view that the question of limitation had been incorrectly decided. A preliminary objection was taken before the Deputy Director Consolidation, Meerut who was acting as Director of Consolidation under section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, while disposing of the remanded case before him. The preliminary objection was to the effect that in view of the explanation added to U. P. Act 18 of 1968, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was not an authority subordinate to him and as such, the revision was not maintainable. This objection-prevailed with the Director of Consolidation who dismissed the revision on this preliminary objection vide his order dated 4-12-1970, hence this writ petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Director of Consolidation has committed a legal error apparent on the face of the record in not entertaining the revision. He argues that since the revision had been filed on 24-1-1963 long before 8-3-1963 the procedure prescribed prior to the amendment was applicable and the revision was maintainable. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that the explanation added by U.P. Act 18 of 1968 fully applied to the facts of the instant case and as such no revision lay to the Director of Consolidation.

(3.) BUT so far as the first category of cases is concerned that is those appeals or revisions which had been filed prior to 8-3-1963 the view expressed in Prem Chand's case was not set aside by the larger Full Bench in Gaurishanker v. Sidh Nath Tewari and another, (Supra). The net result therefore is that revisions or second appeals which had been filed prior to 8.3.1963 and were pending decision had to be decided according to the unamended Act.