JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 10, in appeal and by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 11, who did not entertain the revision application filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 2. The dispute between the parties related to a khata which stood in the name of Tota Ram and his five sons. Teeka Ram petitioner was also a son of Tota Ram, but his name was not recorded as a co-tenant of the khata. The contention of the sons of Tota Ram, who were recorded as tenants, and their descendants was that the share of the petitioner in the khata after the death of Tota Ram was only one-thirty sixth and not one-sixth as shown in the revenue papers. The Consolidation Officer, Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, dismissed the objection by his order dated September 30, 1963. On appeal the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 10, reversed the order of the Consolidation Officer and held that the share of the petitioners was one-thirty-sixth of the khata. That order was passed on February 13, 1964, after the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, No. 6 of 1963, had come into force. The present petitioner filed a revision application before the Director of Consolidation, but it was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 11, by his order dated March 19, 1964, on the ground that there was no provision in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood prior to the amendment of 1963, for a revision being filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, does not suffer from any infirmity. An appeal against an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, lay to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, and the latter arrived at a finding of fact upon the consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary. The finding of fact arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, cannot be questioned. 4. An appeal against an order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Anupshahr, district Bulandshahr, lay to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, and the latter arrived at a finding of fact upon the consideration of evidence, both oral and documentary. The finding of fact arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Bulandshahr, cannot be questioned. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr, opposite party No. 11, had failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him because after the Amending Act 8 of 1963 had come into force revision applications could be filed under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as amended by Act 8 of 1963. He has placed reliance on the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Amending Act. 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 47 of Act 8 of 1963 reads as follows :- "In units notified under Section 4 of the principal Act prior to the date on which this Act comes into force (hereinafter referred to as the said date) all work in regard to or connected with consolidation operations- (1) beyond the stage of publications 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 (2) 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 been 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 respect second appeals and revisions which lay under the provisions 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". 6. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following words of the Proviso :- ".... as respects second appeals and revision ... the Principal Act as amended by this Act shall apply and be deemed always to have applied..." 7. 6. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the following words of the Proviso :- ".... as respects second appeals and revision ... the Principal Act as amended by this Act shall apply and be deemed always to have applied..." 7. In my opinion there is no force in this contention. Prior to the date on which the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act (Act No. 8 of 1963) came into force a second appeal could be filed against an order of the Settlement Officer both on questions of fact and law and a revision application could be filed under Section 48 of the unamended Act only on a question of jurisdiction against the order of the Deputy Director passed in second appeal. In the present case no second appeal was filed and, therefore, it is abundantly clear that under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood prior to the amendment by Act 8 of 1963, no revision application could be preferred by the aggrieved party against the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, (the first appellate court). There can, therefore, be no doubt that, in case the unamended Act applied, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation refusing to entertain the revision application. 8. I have already observed that under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act prior to its amendment by U.P. Act 8 of 1963 no revision application lay against the order of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation. The revision application could only be filed against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation passed in second appeal. In as much as no Second Appeal had been preferred, no revision application could be filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The effect of U.P. Act 8 of 1963, which amended the Principal Act, was that Sections 12-B and 12-C of the Principal Act were deleted. No appeal, therefore, could lie from an order passed under Section 12-C under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as amended by U.P. Act 8 of 1963. Under the provisions of Section 12-C of the unamended Act the findings arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, became final as no appeal was filed by the aggrieved party against that order. Under the provisions of Section 12-C of the unamended Act the findings arrived at by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, became final as no appeal was filed by the aggrieved party against that order. Since under the unamended Act no revision lay against an order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in first appeal the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47 of U.P. Act 8 of 1963 will become inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 9. It was held in the Full Bench case of Prem Chandra v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bara Banki, (1966) R.D. 284 that in a case where proceedings under Section 12-C were being conducted under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 8 of 1963 where a second appeal had been filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, a revision application would lie under unamended Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and that the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47 could not make the amended Section 48 applicable. In that Full Bench case it was held that a revision against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation lay to the Director of Consolidation under the unamended Section 48 because in that case a second appeal had been filed and disposed of. In the present case no second appeal had been filed or disposed of with the result that under the provisions of Section 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 8 of 1963 no revision application lay against an order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 10. There is no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed with costs.