JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - On 8-12-1960 Smt. Bilasi, the predecessor of Respondent No. 4 applied u/s 134 of the UPZA and LR Act for the grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad. The same day she deposited ten times the rent. On 27-6-1962 she sold her Share in the holdings in favour of the Appellants. On 17-5-1963 the SDO passed an order for the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad to Smt. Bilasi. The Respondents filed an appeal before the Commr. against that order and obtained an order of stay of the handing over of the Sanad to Smt. Bilasi. The appeal was, however, stayed by the Commr. when the village came under the consolidation operations. 2. In consolidation proceedings the Appellants applied for mutation of their names in place of Smt. Bilasi. This was resisted by the other co-sharers of Smt. Bilasi on the ground that Smt. Bilasi being only a Sirdar had no right to transfer her share to the Appellants and under the UPZA and LR Act transfer of sirdari rights being void the transferees acquired no title. The CO upheld the defence and rejected the application of the transferees; for mutation. This order was, however, reversed in appeal and the order of the CO was modified. In revision, however, the Dy. DC reversed the order of the SO (C) and restored that of the CO. Aggrieved the transferees came to this Court in a writ petition which failed leading to the present appeal. 3. u/s 137(1) of the UPZA and LR Act it was provided that upon the grant of a certificate the sirdar shall, from the date thereof, became and be deemed to be Bhumidhar of the holding. By U.P., Land Laws (amendment) Act No. 21 of 1962 which same into force on 13-12-1962 this provision was amended. After the amendment it provided that upon the grant of the certificate Under Sub-section (1) the Sirdar shall from the date on which the amount referred to in Sub-section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited will become and be deemed to be the Bhumidhar. Thus the Bhumidhari rights which accrued with effect from the date of the grant of the Sanad under the unamended provision were to accrue from the date of making of the deposit of 10 times the rent under the amended provision. Thus the Bhumidhari rights which accrued with effect from the date of the grant of the Sanad under the unamended provision were to accrue from the date of making of the deposit of 10 times the rent under the amended provision. In the present case the order for the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad was made on 17-5-196(sic). On that date Section 137(2) had in fact been amended. 4. In Dhani Ram v. Jokhu 1971 AWR 32 it was held that the amendments made to Section 137 of the UPZA and LR Act by the Amending Act, of 1962 are not retrospective in the sense that the amended provision will be deemed to be in existence from the date of the commencement of the UPZA and LR Act. We have no quarrel with this proposition. In Smt. Nema v. Dy. DC 1971 AWR 883 it was held that u/s 137, the accrual of bhumidhari rights depends upon the event of the grant of the certificate. When the certificate is granted, then the bhumidhari rights accrue. The effect of the 1962 amendment is to make the accrual retrospective. Since the accrual of the right operates from the date of the grant of the certificate, the amendment to Section 137(2) relating to the retrospectively of the accrual of the right, would apply to grants made on or after the date when the amending Act came into operation. So from the date on which the amendment to Section 137(2) came on the statute book, it will affect and operate upon all certificates granted on or after that date. So construed the; amending Act of 1962 is not given any retrospective effect. It operates prospectively, that is, upon grants made after the amendment came into force. We are in agreement with this view. Since in the present case the order for the grant of the certificate was made on 17-5-1963 the amended section will apply with the result that the accrual of right will relate back to the date of deposit often times the rent, that is, 6-12-1960. Smt. Bilasi will be deemed to be Bhumidhar from 8-12-1960. So the transfer made by her was a valid one because it was made by a Bhumidhar. 5. The Division Bench in Smt. Nema's case (supra) has used the phrase 'grant of certificate'. Smt. Bilasi will be deemed to be Bhumidhar from 8-12-1960. So the transfer made by her was a valid one because it was made by a Bhumidhar. 5. The Division Bench in Smt. Nema's case (supra) has used the phrase 'grant of certificate'. That in our opinion is slightly an inaccurate description of the correct legal position. In Banshidhar v. Dhirajadhari 1971 AWR 440 a Full Bench of this Court has held that under the amended Section 137 the acc\rual of right is on the date of the passing of the order for the grant of the certificate, the event of the actual delivery of the document being immaterial. In this view the fact that the lady did not actually receive the Sanad even on 17-5-1963 will be immaterial. The only relevant and material event being the passing of the order for the grant of the certificate, she would become Bhumidhar on the date of the passing of such order which was in fact passed on 17-5-1963. 6. It was urged on behalf of the Respondents that they had filed an appeal and that it was pending before the Commr. and as the order granting a certificate was the subject matter of the appeal it could not be held that Smt. Bilasi became Bhumidhar. We are unable to sustain this submission. The accrual of Bhumidhari right takes effect on the passing of the order by the SDO. The mere filing of an appeal will not obliterate the operation of that order. The appellate court only granted a stay against the issuance of the document. We have not been shown the actual wording of the order but from the averments made in the writ petition it is clear that the stay order was granted against the actual delivery of the document; the operation of the order for the grant of the Sanad was not suspended. 7. It was then urged that Smt. Bilasi's interest as a sirdar extinguished u/s 190(cc) of the ZA and LR Act and that in view of Section 166 the transfer made by her as Sirdar in favour of the Appellants was void. This submission, in our opinion, is misconceived. When a statute provides for the accrual of rights retrospectively the courts have to give effect to the retrospectivity. This submission, in our opinion, is misconceived. When a statute provides for the accrual of rights retrospectively the courts have to give effect to the retrospectivity. Though on 27-6-1962 Smt. Bilasi was in fact not a Bhumidhar yet after the order was passed on 17-5-1963 she became a Bhumidhar with retrospective effect from 8-12-1960. In law the position is as if she was a Bhumidhar since 8-12-1960. Thus the sale of 27-6-1962 was not by a sirdar but by a Bhumidhar. 3. In our opinion the transfer being valid the Appellants were entitled to mutation of their names. 9. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and quash the order of the Dy.DC. The matter is sent back to the Dy.DC for decision of the revision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The Appellants will be entitled to their costs. Appeal allowed.