JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench: - 1. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, was a revision against the order of the Deputy Director dated 23-3-1963 maintainable before the Joint Director and is the order of the Joint Director dated 15-5-1963 depositing the aforesaid revision a legally correct order ? 2. In case the said revision is held to be maintainable, would it be governed by the amended Sec. 48 or by Sec. 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963 ? 2. The material facts of the case are that the allotment of Chaks was confirmed on the 30th March, 1961 and it was thereafter on the 12th May, 1962 that opposite party No. 1 applied for an alteration invoking the provisions of Sec. 21(6) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it then stood. Acting under Sec. 21 (6) the Deputy Director by his order dated the 23rd March, 1963 made certain alterations in the Chaks. Aggrieved by this order dated the 23rd March, 1963 the present petitioner filed a revision which the Joint Director by his order dated the 15th May, 1963 directed to be deposited on the ground that it was not maintainable. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the propriety of the said order of the Joint Director. 3. No point other than those discussed in my judgment in Writ Petition No. 385 of 1963 was raised in this case. Accordingly, for the reasons given in my judgment in that case, my answers are as follows: - 1. A revision from the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated the 23rd March, 1963 was maintainable and the order dated the 15th May, 1963 of the Joint Director depositing the revision is not a legally correct order. 2. The revision from the Deputy Directors orders dated the 23rd March, 1963 would be governed by the unamended Sec. 48 of the Act. By The Court - For the reasons stated in our judgments in Writ Petition No. 510 of 1963 decided today our answers to the questions referred to this Bench are as follows : - 1. The revision was maintainable and the Joint Directors order depositing it was illegal. 2. By the unamended Sec. 48. 4. Lay before the Bench concerned with these answers. The revision was maintainable and the Joint Directors order depositing it was illegal. 2. By the unamended Sec. 48. 4. Lay before the Bench concerned with these answers. No order as to costs of this reference.