JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Against an order passed by the Asstt. Director of Consolidation in Second Appeal on March 19, 1962, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation on February 18, 1963. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by a writ petition in this Court. The writ petition was allowed on February 12, 1968. The order of the Joint Director of Consolidation was quashed and he was directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law. The joint Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on July 15, 1970 on the ground that it was not maintainable. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the ground on which the Joint Director has dismissed the revision is that in view of the explanation added to Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the Dy. Director of Consolidation who decided the second appeal on March 19, 1962, was not an officer subordinate to the Director of Consolidation and consequently no revision against his order was maintainable. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the explanation added to Section 48 was not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as the revision in the case had been filed before March 8, 1963. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded. The relevant portion of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 read as follows: - "48. Revision: The Director of Consolidation may call for the record of any case decided or proceedings taken, where he is of opinion that a Dy. Director of Consolidation has and he may after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, pass such orders in the case as he thinks fit." 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 as it stood after its being amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 reads: - "48. Director of Consolidation has and he may after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, pass such orders in the case as he thinks fit." 5. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 as it stood after its being amended by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 reads: - "48. Revision and Reference (l) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any 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 of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned-an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as be thinks fit." 6. By the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act, 1968 (President's Act 18 of 1968) the following explanation was added to Section 48: - "Explanation: For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officers, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidators and Consolidation Lekhpal shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation." 7. Section 2 of the amending Act provide that the explanation shall be and shall be deemed always to have been added to Section 48. Subsequently the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Ad 1969 (U.P. Act IV of 1969) was passed By Section 36 of this Act President's (Act 18 of 1968 was repealed and by Section 25 of the explanation aforesaid was provides that the explanation shall be added to Section 48. Section 25 also and shall be deemed always to have been added. It is true that in view of the clause that the explanation shall be and shall be deemed always to have been added, the explanation shall be taken to have been added to Section 48 with retrospective effect. The question, however, arises as to how far back this retrospectivity can be taken. As already seen above, Section 48 before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 did not use the word 'subordinate authority'. In fact the section as it stood at that time specifically provided a revision against the order of a Dy. Director of Consolidation alone. The words subordinate authority occurred in Section 48 only after its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. In fact the section as it stood at that time specifically provided a revision against the order of a Dy. Director of Consolidation alone. The words subordinate authority occurred in Section 48 only after its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. It is well settled that the purpose of an explanation is to clarify something which may be obscure in the body of the section. If the words 'subordinate authority' did not occur at all in Section 48 before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963, there was no occasion for clarifying anything in the said section so that the explanation could be needed. The explanation would obviously, therefore, be in respect of Section 48 as it stood after its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963 when the words 'subordinate authority' were used in this Section. The explanation only clarifies the officers who would be subordinate to the Dy. Director of Consolidation. In my opinion, therefore, the explanation would not apply to Section 148 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. The said Act VIII of 1963 came into force on March 8, 1963. Since in the instant case the revision had already been filed much before that date, it would be governed by the provision of Section 48 as it stood before its amendment by U.P. Act VIII of 1963. As already noticed above Section 48 as it stood at that time contemplated a revision only against an order of a Dy. Director of Consolidation. The revision was, therefore, competent. 8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents urged that the explanation would be deemed to have been added to Section 48 from its very inception. In support of his submission reliance was placed on Risal Singh v. Consolidation Officer, District Bulandshahr, 1970 R.D. 457. In that case the second appeal itself had been decided on March 17, 1965, i.e. long after U.P. Act VIII of 1963, had come into force. 9. Reliance was also placed on Ram Niranjan and another v. Ram Awadh Singh and others, 1973 R.D. 446. In that case too the order passed in second appeal was dated March 22, 1963. Orders passed by the second appellate court in both the cases referred to above, being after March 8, 1963, those cases are distinguishable on facts. 10. 9. Reliance was also placed on Ram Niranjan and another v. Ram Awadh Singh and others, 1973 R.D. 446. In that case too the order passed in second appeal was dated March 22, 1963. Orders passed by the second appellate court in both the cases referred to above, being after March 8, 1963, those cases are distinguishable on facts. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the Dy. Director committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the revision as not maintainable. 11. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation is quashed and he is directed to decide the revision on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.