JUDGMENT S.N. Singh, J. - This case has come before us on a reference by a learned single Judge. The point referred is: "Is a Deputy Director Consolidation 'subordinate authority' within the meaning of Section 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act? 2. Brief facts giving rise to the question referred are that during the consolidation proceedings Budh Singh, Respondent No. 5, filed an objection to the statement of proposals u/s 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. His objection was allowed on 7th of April, 1962. Man Singh, Respondent No. 4, preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). This appeal was dismissed. A second appeal was preferred against the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). The Deputy Director (Consolidation) on 10th of August, 1962, allowed the second appeal. After the decision of this second appeal, Budh Singh filed a revision. This revision was allowed on 23rd of March, 1963. The order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowing the second appeal was set aside and the case was remanded. After remand, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) prepared a fresh schedule on 11th of September, 1963. Aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation), Man Singh filed a writ petition in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court by his order dated 4th of January, 1968, quashed the order of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) dated 11th of September, 1963 and directed him to decide the second appeal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) decided the second appeal and allowed it on 16th of October, 1968. Man Singh again felt aggrieved and filed a revision. This' revision was partly allowed by a Deputy Director (Consolidation) on 10th of July, 1969. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the order dated 10th of July, 1969. 3. When the case was listed for final disposal before a learned Single Judge, two points were pressed. Firstly, it was urged that the second appeal having been decided on 16th of October, 1968, no revision lay against it. Secondly, it was urged that a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not an authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation within the meaning of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence his order was not amenable to be revised by the Director of Consolidation. Secondly, it was urged that a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not an authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation within the meaning of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, hence his order was not amenable to be revised by the Director of Consolidation. In support of the abovementioned submissions the learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on a decision in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1384 of 1965--Ram Pratap and Anr. v. Deputy Director Consolidation--dated 9-4-1969, in which it was held that according to the explanation added in the year 1968 to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Section 48 of the Act. The learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Sri Justice Satish Chandra) considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He noticed the various decisions on the point and found that there was a conflict of opinion as to whether a Deputy Director (Consolidation) was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. He referred to the cases bearing on the subject and observed: ...it is a little difficult Jo accept that, though the Legislature eliminated the second appeals, that is to say, the Deputy Director was no longer to decide a second appeal on facts, but a revision was provided on facts, yet, in relation to an order parsed in a second appeal, though it was expressly made revisable in view of the proviso to Section 47 of the amending Act, the Effect of that proviso was taken away by intending that the phrase 'subordinate authority' used in Section 48 was not to include a Deputy Director. He opined that the phrase 'subordinate authority' was used in Section 48 to confer a comprehensive jurisdiction upon the Director of Consolidation an respect of all authorities who have to do consolidation work in any capacity or at any level. The learned Judge also opined that the explanation added to Section 48 by Act No. XVIII of 1968 is not exhaustive, but only descriptive. 4. Having come to the above conclusion, the learned Judge referred this case for consideration by a larger Bench. This is how the case has come before us. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions. 4. Having come to the above conclusion, the learned Judge referred this case for consideration by a larger Bench. This is how the case has come before us. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions. In order to give our opinion on the point referred, it will be necessary to notice the various amendments to the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 6. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, came into force in March, 1954. In this Act We find that there was a provision for the hearing of an objection by the Consolidation Officer, a first appeal by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) and a revision by the Deputy Director (Consolidation). Thus there were only three stages for decision. Section 48 of this Act read as follows: The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case or proceeding if the Officer (other than the Arbitrator) by whom the case was decided or proceeding taken appears to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in him by law or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity and may pass such orders in the case or proceeding as he thinks fit. It will be relevant to note that in this Section 48, as it originally stood, a Director of Consolidation was given power to call for the record of a case or proceeding decided by any officer. The words 'subordinate authority' were not used in this section. 7. This Act was amended by Act No. XXXVIII of 1958. Under this Act we find that in consolidation proceedings an objection was to be decided by a Consolidation Officer, an appeal was provided before a Settlement Officer (Consolidation), a second appeal was provided before a Deputy Director (Consolidation) and thereafter a revision was provided before a Director of Consolidation. Thus there were four stages for decision under this Act. Under this Act we find that in consolidation proceedings an objection was to be decided by a Consolidation Officer, an appeal was provided before a Settlement Officer (Consolidation), a second appeal was provided before a Deputy Director (Consolidation) and thereafter a revision was provided before a Director of Consolidation. Thus there were four stages for decision under this Act. Section 48 of this Act reads as follows: The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case decided or proceeding taken where he is of the opinion that a Deputy Director (Consolidation) has-- (i) exercised jurisdiction not vested in him in law; or (ii) failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him; or (iii) acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with substantial irregularity; and as a result of which substantial injustice appears to have been caused to a tenure-holder and he may, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, pass such orders in the case or proceeding as he thinks fit. 8. After a lapse of about four years and a few months, the Legislature thought of eliminating one stage, that is the stage of second appeals and gave larger powers to the final revisional authority, who was given full jurisdiction to decide questions of fact well as of law and thus Act No. VII (sic) amended the U.P. (sic) Act. Section 48 of this (sic): The Director of (sic) call for and examine (sic) case decided or proceed (sic) subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under Sub-section (1) may be exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under Sub-section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under Sub-section (1). 9. When this Act VIII of 1963 was passed there were a larger number of revisions pending before various Director or Deputy Directors on whom powers of Directors were conferred. 9. When this Act VIII of 1963 was passed there were a larger number of revisions pending before various Director or Deputy Directors on whom powers of Directors were conferred. The Deputy Directors (Consolidation) or Directors of Consolidation rejected the revisions as not maintainable in view of Act VIII of 1963 for the reason that they considered that under Act VIII of 1963 Deputy Directors (Consolidation) were not subordinate to the Directors of Consolidation and as such the revisions were not maintainable. Consequently a large number of writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the orders of the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) rejecting the revisions as not maintainable. When those cases were listed before a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Sri Justice S.N. Dwivedi), the learned Judge referred two questions to a larger Bench for decision. One of the questions, which is relevant for our purposes, is as follows: (1) Whether a revision u/s 43 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would lie under the Act as amended by the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1963, against an order passed in second appeal by a Deputy Director (Consolidation) under the unamended Act? This question was considered by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Sri M.C. Desai, C.J. and Hon'ble Sri Justice R.S. Pathak reported in Lal Singh v. The Commissioner and Director of Consolidation Meerut Division 1964 AWR 68. The Division Bench answered the question in the affirmative. While answering this question in the affirmative, the Bench made a distinction between orders passed before March 8, 1963 and orders passed after March 8, 1963. The Bench was of the opinion that orders passed by Deputy Directors (Consolidation) before March 8, 1963 were orders passed as subordinate authorities and as such those orders were amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Directors of Consolidation or Deputy Directors (Consolidation) conferred with the powers of the Directors of Consolidation, but the Bench was of the opinion that the orders passed after March 8, 1963 were not revisable by the Directors, for on the passing of Act VIII of 1963, the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) were not subordinate to the Directors of Consolidation because Directors' powers to revise an order under the amended Section 48 have actually been conferred upon Deputy Directors (Consolidation). It was observed in this case that when a Deputy Director has the same power as a Director, his order is not now revisable by a Director and there is nothing else to suggest that he is of a subordinate rank and so a Deputy Director can no longer be said to be subordinate to a Director. This Bench also gave other reasons for holding that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was not subordinate to the Director under this Act. 10. Subsequent to this Division Bench decision, in a case which was decided by the Deputy Director (Consolidation) after March 8, 1963, the question was raised that the order having been passed after March 8, 1963, was not revisable by the Director of Consolidation in view of the opinion expressed in the Division Bench case of Lal Singh (supra). A learned single Judge (Hon'ble Sri Justice S.N. Dwivedi) did not accept the contention raised as he was of the view that the opinion expressed by the Division Bench about the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) not being subordinate to the Directors of Consolidation was only an obiter. He considered the various provisions of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act and Rules and came to the conclusion that the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) were still subordinate to the Directors of Consolidation and the orders passed by the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) even after 8th of March 1963 were amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Directors of Consolidation or the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) conferred with the powers of the Directors of Consolidation. 11. After the above decision of the learned Single Judge, this question was again agitated before a Full Bench consisting of Hon'ble Sri M.C. Desai, G.J., Hon'ble Sri Justice G.D. Sahgak and Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Prasad in Premchandra v. Deputy Director 1966 AWR 291. The following questions amongst others were referred to the Full Bench: 1 (a) On the facts and circumstances of the case was a revision against the, order of the Deputy Director dated 22-3-1963 maintainable in the present case? (b) If so, would such a revision be governed by amended Section 48 or Section 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963? The Full Bench answered question No. 1 (a) in the affirmative and the answer to question No. 1 (b) was given that it will be governed by the unameded Section 48. (b) If so, would such a revision be governed by amended Section 48 or Section 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963? The Full Bench answered question No. 1 (a) in the affirmative and the answer to question No. 1 (b) was given that it will be governed by the unameded Section 48. This Bench was mainly concerned with the interpretation of Section 17, transitory provisions of Act VIII of 1963. Before this Bench, it appears, the question of the subordination of Deputy Director (Consolidation) was also agitated. Hon'ble Sri M.C. Desai, Chief Justice, dealt with this matter at some length and he stuck to his opinion, which is had expressed in Lal Singh's case (supra) and in another case Lallu v. Joint Director (Consolidation) 1965 AWR 66, that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) after the passing of Act VIII of 1963 was not subordinate to the Director but this view was not shared by Hon'ble Sri Justice G.D. Sahgal, who agreed with Hon'ble Sri Justice S.N. Dwivedi and held that even after the passing bf Act VIII of 1963 a Deputy Director (Consolidation) was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. However, inspite of this difference of opinion between the two learned judges on this point, the answer to the questions referral was the same. The report of the Full Bench does not disclose as to what was the opinion of the third learned Judge (Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Prasad), because the judgment of the learned Judge is not reported in the journals. Thus we find that divergent views were expressed on the question as to whether Deputy Director (Consolidation) was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation after the passing of Act VIII of 1963. 12. After the decision of the above Full Bench, a Division Bench of this Court again felt doubt about the correctness of the decision of the Full Bench, about the interpretation of Section 47 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (Act No. VIII of 1963). A larger Bench was constituted to consider the correctness of that Full Bench, which is reported in Gauri Shanker v. Sidh Nath 1968 AWR 770 . This larger Bench by majority overruled the decision in Prem-Chandra's case (supra) and held that the decision given by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Dy. A larger Bench was constituted to consider the correctness of that Full Bench, which is reported in Gauri Shanker v. Sidh Nath 1968 AWR 770 . This larger Bench by majority overruled the decision in Prem-Chandra's case (supra) and held that the decision given by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Dy. Director (C) on or after 8th March 1963 would be governed by the amended Act VIII of 1963. The precise question whether the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was subordinate to the Director of Consolidation did not arise in this Full Bench case. This question was left undecided by the Full Bench and the learned Judges refrained from expressing any opinion on that controversy. In this last Full Bench referred to above the learned Judges taking the majority view observed: The proclaimed purpose of the proviso was to abrogate the second appeals. That could be done effectively by taking away the substantive right. The right could properly be repealed only if the repealing law operated on the day it accrued or vested. To assure this, the Legislature specifically used the word 'lays' and stated in the proviso not only that the amended Act shall apply, but, further, that it shall be deemed always to have applied as if the Amending Act had been in force on all material dates. It was further observed: The professed purpose of the amending Act to eliminate second appeals is not effectively achieved on the view expressed in Prem Chandra's case. According to it, second appeals could not be filed on or after 8-3-1963 against orders passed prior to that date. But second appeals could be filed if the order was passed later. That is no real elimination. A construction which leads to a large scale evasion of the provision resulting in its object being defeated is to be avoided; see Shanti Prasad Jain Vs. The Director of Enforcement, AIR 1962 SC 1764 . It was again observed: The object of the Amending Act in deleting Sections 11(2) and 21(5) and (6) of the Principal Act and in substituting Section 48, obviously, was to take away the right of second appeal and of revision which lay against orders passed in first appeals and second appeals and to provide for a revision on facts as well as on law. The main reason given by the learned Judges constituting the majority was that on the view held in Prem Chandra's case (supra) the purpose of the Legislature was not effectuated. Thus it is crystal clear that the professed purpose of the Legislature in enacting Act No. VIII of 1963 was to eliminate one stage out of the four stages as provided in Act XXX-VIII of 1958. After the passing of Act No. VIII of 1963 we have noticed that there was divergence of opinion on the question as to whether the Deputy Director (Consolidation) was, subordinate to the Director of Consolidation. It is at this time that the Legislature thought it proper to amend the UP, Consolidation of Holdings Act by Act No. XVIII of 1968. By this amending Act an explanation was added to Section 48. This explanation reads as follows: Section 3(1)(a) of this amending Act also is relevant for our purposes, which reads as follows: Every officer or authority on whom the powers of the Director of Consolidation were at any time before the Commencement of this Act conferred Under Clause (ii) of Section 44 of the principal Act by the State Government shall, with effect from the date of such conferment, be deemed to have been duly appointed as Director of Consolidation Under Clause (4) of Section 3 of the said Act. These two provisions, that is the explanation and Section 3(1)(a), added by this amending Act, clearly show that the Legislature meant to effectuate its professed purpose of eliminating one stage from the four stages which had been provided by Act XXXVIII of 1958. The intention of the Legislature is clear that it never intended that there should be a third appeal against the order of a Dy. Director (Consolidation) passed in second appeal. 13. The intention of the Legislature is clear that it never intended that there should be a third appeal against the order of a Dy. Director (Consolidation) passed in second appeal. 13. A "Deputy Director, Consolidation" under this Act is defined in Section 3(4-A), which reads: 'Deputy Director, Consolidation' means a person appointed as such by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such duties of the Director of Consolidation as may be delegated to him by the State Government and shall include a District Deputy Director of Consolidation and Assistant Director of Consolidation; This definition read with Section 3 of Act XVIII of 1968 clearly shows that under this Act the Deputy Director (Consolidation) discharges the functions of the Director of Consolidation and is deemed to have been duly appointed as Director of Consolidation Under Clause (4) of Section 3 of this Act, that is, he exercises co-ordinate jurisdiction along with the Director of Consolidation. Thus after the addition of the explanation to Section 48 (Act No. XVIII of 1968) it is amply clear that the Deputy Director (Consolidation) cannot be said to be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 14. The question whether a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is subordinate to the Director after the addition of the explanation to Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act came up for consideration before several learned single Judges, who have expressed the opinion that after the addition of the explanation to Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act a Deputy Director (Consolidation) cannot be deemed to be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation, vida Ram Pratap v. Deputy Director Consolidation (supra), Smt. Ilachi Devi v. Settlement Officer (Consolidation) CMW No. 3250 of 1965 D/- 16-7-1969 by Hon'ble Sri Justice M.H. Beg, Sri Kesho Rai v. Deputy Director (Consolidation) CMW No. 1189 of 1965 D/- 12-3-1969 by Hon'ble Sri Justice K.N. Srivastava and Harihar Rai v. Deputy Director (Consolidation) (Writ No. 6 of 1964) connected with Harihar Rai v. Deputy Director (Consolidation) CMW No. 214 of 1964 and Kamla Kant v. State of UP CMW No. 875 of 1964 D/- 20-8-1969 by Hon'ble Sri Justice Hari Swamp. 15. 15. In Rishal Singh v. Consolidation Officer Siana district Bulandshahr CMW No. 2448 of 1963 D/- 27-7-1970 one of us (S.N. Singh, J.) had also occasion to consider this question of subordination of the Deputy Director (Consolidation) and expressed an opinion that after the addition of the explanation, by the 1968 Amending Act, the Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not subordinate to the Director of Consolidation for the purposes of Section 48 of Act VIII of 1963. We agree with the view expressed in this case. 16. This has further to be mentioned that the decision given by one of the learned Judges (Hon'ble Sri Justice Haw Swarup) in Harihar Rai v. Deputy Director (Consolidation) (supra) was appealed against and the appeal came for admission before a Bench, consisting of Hon'ble Sri Justice Satish Chandra and Hon'ble Sri Justice R.L. Gulatji who dismissed the special appeal summarily with the following order: There is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly rejected. The rejection of this spatial appeal would mean that the Bench approved the decision of the learned single Judge. Thus the consensus of the views expressed by the various learned Judges of this Court is that a Deputy Director (Consolidation) is not a subordinate authority to the Director pf Consolidation within the meaning of Section 48(1) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act. 17. It is said that the mention of the various authorities in the explanation is descriptive or remunerative rather than exhaustive. But from the explanation was find that all the officers and authorities appointed by the State Government for the purposes of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, except the Deputy Directors (Consolidation) and co-ordinate officers such as District Deputy Directors (Consolidation) and Assistant Directors of Consolidation, have been mentioned in the explanation. The explanation mentioned appears to be exhaustive and not descriptive. The reason for enacting Act XVIII of 1958 has been mentioned as follows: Section 48 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 empowers the Director of Consolidation to hear revisions against orders passed by the authorities subordinate to him. It also enables such authorities to refer any case or proceeding to the Director of Consolidation for orders. In order to make it clear as to which authorities will be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation the explanation is professed to be added to that section retrospectively. It also enables such authorities to refer any case or proceeding to the Director of Consolidation for orders. In order to make it clear as to which authorities will be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation the explanation is professed to be added to that section retrospectively. This reason for the enactment clearly shows that the list of authorities mentioned in the explanation is exhaustive and not descriptive or enumerative. 18. In view of the above discussions, our answer to the question referred is in the negative. Let the record of the case be returned to the learned single Judge with, the above answer.