GAURI SHANKER Vs. SIDHNATH TEWARI AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question before this Full Bench relates to the interpretation of Section 47 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act No. VIII of 1963 (hereinafter called the Amending Act. For the sake of convenience I will refer to the principal Act as it stood prior to and after this Amending Act, as the unamended and the Amended Act respectively).

(2.) GAURI Shanker, the Appellant, filed objections Under Section 20(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, to the proposed allotment of chaks. They were dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on 23 -2 -1963. The appeal filed by Gauri Shanker was dismissed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) on 8 -3 -1963. Gauri Shanker then filed a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation on 20 -6 -1963, allowed the revision and upholding the grievance of Gauri Shanker on facts modified the allotment. Sidhnath, Respondent No. 1, came to this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution. A learned single Judge quashed the order of the Deputy Director, on, inter alia, the ground that the Deputy Director ought not to have interfered when there was no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the subordinate authorities. Gauri Shanker filed a special appeal. At its hearing it appears to have been urged for the Appellant that in view of the proviso to Section 47 of the Amending Act, the revision would be governed by Section 48 as it stood after its amendment and the Deputy Director of Consolidation was competent to go into facts. For the Respondents reliance was placed on a three Judge Full Bench decision in Prem Chandra v. Deputy Director, 1966 AWR 291 : UPRC 103 for the submission that the proviso to Section 47 applied only when the impugned order had been pronounced before 8 -3 -1963. In the present case the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 8 -3 -1963. A revision against it would be governed by the unamended Section 48 and would lie only on questions of jurisdiction; and would not be maintainable against an order of the Settlement Officer. The Division Bench (Hon'ble Jagdish Sahai and R.S. Pathak, JJ.) felt that the decision in Prem Chandra's case required reconsideration, but, referred the entire appeal to a larger Bench. This Bench heard the counsel on the interpretation of Section 47 of the Amending Act alone. Other questions arising in the appeal hence need not be dealt with.

(3.) SECTION 47 of the Amending Act was the transitory provision. Its relevant part stated: