JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - This special appeal arises out of proceedings for partition conducted under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Consolidation Officer decided the partition proceedings on 19--2--1964. Aggrieved, both parties filed cross appeals. The Settlement Officer by his order dated 9-6-1964, disposed of the appeals. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a revision. The Dy. D.C. dismissed the revision on the ground that it was not maintainable. The appellants then instituted a writ petition. A learned single Judge upheld the finding that the revision was not maintainable. He repelled the other submissions on the merits and dismissed the writ petition. 2. In the present appeal Mr. Chaudhary has reiterated the plea that the revision was maintainable. 3. Under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood prior to its amendment by amending Act No. 8 of 1963, which came into force on 8--3--1963, the position was that the order of the Settlement Officer disposing of an appeal in partition proceedings was made final by S. 12C of the Act. S. 48 which conferred revisional jurisdiction was confined to questions of jurisdiction and to orders passed by the Dy. D.C. In other words orders passed by other subordinate consolidation authorities were not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. 4. The amending Act No. 8 of 1963 brought about drastic changes in the Act. It repealed S. 12C with the result that the finality attached to the Settlement Officer's appellate orders disappeared. S. 48 of the Act was repealed and re-enacted. Now the revisional power extended to questions of fact and law as well and it governed orders passed by all subordinate authorities, which term includes the Settlement Officer. The result was that under the amended Act a revision became maintainable against orders passed in partition proceedings. 5. Section 47 of the amending Act provided the transitory provisions. It reads:- "47. Now the revisional power extended to questions of fact and law as well and it governed orders passed by all subordinate authorities, which term includes the Settlement Officer. The result was that under the amended Act a revision became maintainable against orders passed in partition proceedings. 5. Section 47 of the amending Act provided the transitory provisions. It reads:- "47. Transitory provisions:--(1) In unit 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- (i) beyond the stage of publication 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 (ii) up to 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 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 respects 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. (2) All other work, to which the provisions of sub-S. (1) do not apply, shall be conducted and concluded in accordance with the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act. Explanation:- In units where notices under section 9 of the principal Act had not issued on or before the said date, any work done shall, for the purposes of this subsection, be deemed always to have been done under the provisions of the principal Act as amended by this Act... Since no revision was provided for or lay under the unamended Act against the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer in partition proceedings, it cannot be said that any such revision lay under the principal Act so as to attract the proviso to sub-S. (1). Since no revision was provided for or lay under the unamended Act against the appellate order passed by the Settlement Officer in partition proceedings, it cannot be said that any such revision lay under the principal Act so as to attract the proviso to sub-S. (1). Similarly, since no such revisional proceedings were contemplated by the unamended Act, no question of holding that a revision was a proceeding up to and including of the stage of confirmation of the Statement of Principles under section 18 of the principal Act could arise within meaning of clause (ii) of sub-S. (1). It is thus evident that sub-S. (1) of S. 47 as such was not applicable to a contemplated proceeding in revision to be instituted after the coming into force of the amending Act. Thus the conditions mentioned in sub-S. (2) namely that "all other work, to which the provisions of sub-S. (1) do not apply" are fulfilled. A revision which may be instituted after the coming into force of the amending Act would be governed by sub-S. (2) because to such a revision the provisions of sub-S. (1) were not applicable. In our opinion, proceedings in revision under section 48 of the Act could well be within the purview of the phrase "all other work" occurring in sub-S. (2). Such a revision would be governed by the amended Act. 6. In the present case the Settlement Officer passed the appellate order on 19--6--1964, i.e. after the coming into force of the amending Act. Under the amended S. 48 a revision lay against an order passed by the Settlement Officer and the revisional jurisdiction extended to questions of fact as well as law. The revision filed by the appellants was maintainable and was entitled to be conducted and concluded in accordance with the amended Act. The view taken by the Deputy Director as well as by the learned single Judge to the contrary cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Deputy Director for disposal of the revision in accordance with law. The parties may, however, bear their own costs.