JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated August 6, 1969 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Addl. Commissioner Faizabad division allowing appeal no. 336 and setting aside the order dated February 22, 1969 of the Tahsildar Gonda in a case u/s 134/137 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the Id. counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts of the case are as follows: Smt. Sheo Rani widow of Har Charan filed an application before the Tahsildar Tarabganj, Distt. Gonda on December 3, 1968 praying for the issue of Bhumidhari declaration for her half share in a sirdari holding consisting of plot nos. 83-B and 85 situated in village Katha. Tulsi ram and Smt. Abhilakhi filed an objection to the application that the land in suit was the Sirdari of the Bhagwati and Har Charan both of whom had died and thereafter it had come to the share of Smt. Abhilakhi widow of Bhagwatii and Tulsi Ram brother of Bagwati and that Smt. Sheorani was never married to Har Charan and had no claim over the land. Smt. Sheorani died on February 11, 1969. The Tahsildar ordered the issue of Bhumidhari Sanad in favour of Smt. Abhilakhi and Tulsi Ram went up in appeal and the Addl. Commissioner by his order dated August 6, 1969 set aside the order dated February 22, 1969. One Kangal S/o Ganga has come upon revision against this order. 4. The main contention of the Id. counsel for the revisionist is that no appeal lay against the order of the Id. Tahsildar and the appeal being not maintainable should have been dismissed on this ground alone. According to the Id. counsel the Addl. Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the lower court's order. This contention of the Id. counsel cannot be accepted. According to Sl. nos. 6 and 7 of Schedule III of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act proceedings for acquisition of bhumidhari rights as well as application for cancellation of certificates are appealable and the first appeal lies to the Commissioner. The Id. Addl Commissioner has, therefore, not exceeded his jurisdiction in the present in the present case. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that the Id. Addl. The Id. Addl Commissioner has, therefore, not exceeded his jurisdiction in the present in the present case. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that the Id. Addl. Commissioner has held quite correctly that a Bhumidhari Sanad cold not be issued in favour of Smt. Sheorani on February 22, 1969 because she had already died on February 11, 1969. There is no provision of law under which a Bhumidhari Sanad can be issued in the name of the dead person. As regards the status of Kangal, the present revisionist, he merely claim to be a Vendee of Smt. Sheorani. However till the date of her death Smt. Sheorani was only a Sirdar of the land in suit and therefore did,not possess the right of sale. Thus the the sale of the Sirdari holding in favour of the revisionist was void u/s 166 of Z.A. and L.R. Act. Accordingly Kangal has no legal status whatsoever. The Id. counsel for the revisionist has referred to Jwala v. Smt Malka 1975 R.D. page 221 wherein a Id. single Member of the Board of Revenue has held as follow: "The only requirement is that there must be a Sirdar in existence on the date the certificate is granted. Hence, though the certificate cannot possibly be granted in favour of or to the benefit of a dead person, but certainly the successor in interest cannot be denied the benefit which would have accrued to his predecessor. In the instant case the daughter succeeded the mother and as such as cannot be denied the Bhumidhari right for which as application was made by her mother.." 6. I would uphold the principle enunciated above. It must be recognised that a Bhumidhari Sanad cannot be granted in favour of and to the benefit of a dead person. A leal heir under Section 171 to 175 and of the Z.A. act automatically succeeds to the interest of the decreased succeeds to the interest of the deceased tenure-holder end and therefore, would be entitled to the Bhumidhari Sanad in his or her favour. This is, however, not the position of a Vendee as the sale of a sirdari holding is itself void and confers no rights on the vendees. This is, however, not the position of a Vendee as the sale of a sirdari holding is itself void and confers no rights on the vendees. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly held that in the present case the revisionist had failed to acquire any right or title in the land in dispute on the basis of a void sale deed and could not be the legal representative of Smt. Sheorani. 7. The result is tat the learned Additional commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated February 22, 1969. I find no force in this revision herby dismiss it with costs.