ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition arises out of proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The Petitioner is a brother of one Ratan. Both were sirdars of plots of Khata No. 107 in dispute. On 8-5-1964 Ratan deposited ten times rent of his share of the Khata aforesaid and made an application for a Bhumidhari Sanad. The same day i.e. on 8-5-1964 Ratan sold the property in dispute in favour of the Respondents by a registered sale-deed. Ratan died on 26-9-1964. On 30-12-1965 the Bhumidhari Sanad was granted in favour of Ratan. The Petitioner filed an appeal against this grant, during the pendency of which the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act commenced. Consequently, the Petitioner filed an objection u/s 9 claiming that he being the heir of Ratan has succeeded to the property and that the Respondents obtained no valid title by the sale deed executed by Ratan because on the date when the deed was executed Ratan was not a Bhumidhar but only a sirdar and as such entitled to transfer. 3. The Deputy Director has held that the sale-deed was valid. u/s 134 of the Zamindari Abolition Act a sirdar is entitled, from the date on which the amount has been deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137. u/s 137 upon the grant of the certificate the sirdar becomes and is deemed to be a Bhumidhar of the holding of the share in respect of which a certificate has been granted from the date thereof. So on the grant of the certificate the person becomes by a legal fiction, a Bhumidhar with retrospective effect from the date of the deposit of ten times of rent. In the instant case the Sanad was actually granted in favour of Ratan. He, therefore, became and will be deemed to have become a Bhumidhar from the date of the deposit i.e. from 8-5-1964 and as such the sale-deed executed by him was valid. 4. The fact that Ratan died before the grant of the Sanad will in the instant case make no difference, because the certificate was nonetheless granted in his name and because no proceeding for the cancellation of the Sanad u/s 137-A of the Act were taken. 4. The fact that Ratan died before the grant of the Sanad will in the instant case make no difference, because the certificate was nonetheless granted in his name and because no proceeding for the cancellation of the Sanad u/s 137-A of the Act were taken. There being a statutory provision for the cancellation of the Sanad and that not having been taken, this Sanad will be treated as a valid Sanad. Since the Sanad operates retrospectively it automatically invested Ratan with the Bhumidhari rights on 8-5-1964. 5. For the Petitioner's reliance is placed upon Anis Ahmad and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1965 AWR 458 . There the Sanad was actually cancelled. It was held that the position would be as if no certificate had been granted and hence the man never acquired the Bhumidhari rights. That case is clearly distinguishable. 6. The instant case does not raise the problem, as to whether the person depositing ten times rent would become a Bhumidhar in case where the certificate is actually granted not in his name but in the name of, either his heir of some one else because the depositor has in the meantime died. That situation has not arisen in this case. 7. The view taken by the Deputy Director does not seem to be manifestly erroneous. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.