JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri R.L. Sharma, Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division in revision No. 55/45 of the 173-74 filled against the order of Naib Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector, Maudaha, Distt. Hamirpur, dated July 22, 1974 in suit No,. 248 of 1974 under Section 134 of Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The fact may be briefly stated here. The revisionist Bandi moved an application before the Tahsildar Maudaha on May 13, 1974 to the effect that he had deposited 20 times tent of his th share in a Sirdari holding and may be declared Bhumidhar thereof. Subsequently on June 13, 1974 he filed an other application that one Sunder had fraudulently got his thumb impressions on his earlier application for mutation of land which the applicant had purchased from one Laksman. On June 17, 1974 the trial court ordered that the Sanad shall not be issued and the money deposited may be forfeited. On June 21, 1974 Sunder moved an application to the effect that he had purchased the land in question on May 13, 1974 from Bandi and that he should have been made a party in Bandi's subsequently application. Thereupon the trial court set aside the ex parte order dated June 17, 1974 and ordered that opportunity may be given to both the parties to produce their evidence. Bandi has now come up in revision against this order. The learned Addl. Commissioner has recommended that the revision may be accepted. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Kasi Pd. v. Ram Das, 1973 R.D . 311 in which a learned single Member has held that a person claiming to be vendee has no locus standi in the proceedings under Sections 134 and 137 of Z.A. Act inasmuch as the applicant seeking the declaration of his Bhumidhari can only well the property if he had been declared to be of that status and that the Asstt. Collector or was justified in rejecting the prayer of the vendee for being impleaded as a party. Collector or was justified in rejecting the prayer of the vendee for being impleaded as a party. The learned counsel for the O.P. has on the other had referred to Dillan v. Ram Rati, 1974 R.D. 243 in which a Full Bench of the Board of Revenue has held as follows :- "A Sirdar having made up his mind to become a Bhumidhar and in pursuance of that intention makes the deposit of the requisite amount in the Government Treasury he will have no option or inherent right to withdraw the application. On the other hand he has indefeasible right to acquire Bhumidhari Sanad, and the State Government has no option of rejecting his application except in the circumstances specified in the U.P. Zamindari Aboltion and Land Reforms Act and the Sanad must be granted to him." 5. He has also referred to Har Dass v. Smt. Jurawan, 1974 R.D. 353 in which a learned single Member held as follows :- "The applicant could not under the law withdraw her application for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad. Her application ought to have been rejected by the two courts below. The vendee from the applicant for Bhumidhari Sanad should have been impleaded as a party by the courts below so that he could watch his interest as he had a contingent right in the land in suit. The trial court was not empowered under the law to allow to withdraw the application for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad made by her after she had deposited ten times of the annual land revenue." 6. I have carefully considered the position. To my mind the decisions in Dillan v. Ram Rati, 1974 R.D. 243 and Har Dass v. Smt. Jurawan, 1974 R.D. 353 have laid down the law correctly. As regards the Kasi Pd. v. Ram Das, 1973 R.D. 311 which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it may be observed that while it is correct that the right of a person seeking declaration of his Bhumidhari to sell his property accrues only after declaration of status of Bhumidhar, this courts has to consider which of the two applications made by the applicant is genuine and which is fraudulent, the one seeking declaration to Bhumidhari rights or the one praying that the Bhumidhari declaration should not be issued. To arrive at the correct finding on this question this Court has to consider the conduct of the applicant. It a vendee comes forward and proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the applicant had moved an application for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad had made the requisite deposit in the Sub Treasury and had thereafter executed a sale deed of the land in question in favour of the vendee, this would conclusively prove that the Bhumidhar Sanad should not be issued is fraudulent and is aimed towards defrauding the vendee. In such circumstances the trial court must give the vendee a proper opportunity to produce his evidence in the interest of justice. Sections 134 and 137 of Z.A. Act no where specify who shall be made or shall not be made parties to the proceedings for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad. These sections only refer to wo conditions viz. (1) That the application for the grant of Sanad has ben duly made and (2) That the Asstt. Collector is duly satisfied. For his due satisfaction the Asstt. Collector is fully empowered to implead any party in these proceedings in order to serve the interest of justice. 7. I therefore, hold that the trial court was perfectly justified in setting aside it ex parte order dated June 17, 1974 and in allowing both the parties, the applicant as well as the vendee an opportunity to produce the evidence. The reference made by learned Addl. Commissioner is erroneous in law. I find no force in the revision and hereby dismiss it.