JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated May 20, 1970 passed by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division in three connected appeals nos. 308/787, 309/788 and 310/789 arsing out of consolidated order dated July 7, 1969 passed by Assistant Collector, Tanda, Faizabad, refusing to issue Sanad to the revisionists. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly stated here. One Srimati Chandraji moved an application before the Tahsildar, Tanda on June 20, 1968 for grant of bhumidhari sanad for the land in dispute. The Tahsildar after calling for a report from the office, ordered that the 10 times rent be deposited. The amount often times rent was deposited in the Sub Treasury on June 20, 1968. Thereafter on August 13, 1968 one Satya Narain Tewari filed an objection against the grant of the Sanad stating that Srimati Chandraji had died on July 5, 1968 and that she had not deposited the ten times rent and the Sanad should not be issued. On the other hand, one Ram Shabd filed a application on September 19, 1968 to the effect that Srimiati Chandraji had after depositing ten times rent executed a sale deed of the land in dispute in his favour on June 20, 1968 and as Srimati Chandraji had died, the Sanad may now be issued in his favour. By its order dated July 7, 1959 the trial court refused to issued the Sanad in favour of Srimati Chandraji on the ground that she had died. The learned Additional Commissioner had upheld the order of the trail court Ram Shabd and Om Prakash have now come in revision against this order before this court. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the revisionists being the assignees and legal representatives of Srimati Chandraji, who had during her life time deposited ten times rent of the holding and had applied for the issued of the bhumidari sanad, it should have been grated and handed over the bhumidhari sanad. He has argued that the courts below in refusing to prepare and issue the bhumidarhi sanad have failed to exercise proper jurisdiction, thereby causing material and substantial injustice. He has argued that the courts below in refusing to prepare and issue the bhumidarhi sanad have failed to exercise proper jurisdiction, thereby causing material and substantial injustice. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has referred to Awadhesh Saran v. Smt. Gilaria 1974 R.D. p. 102 wherein a learned Bench of the Board of Revenue has held as follows:- "The question of natural right to revoke would subsist only in a set of circumstances where both the parties are free to revoke what they had contracted. The grant of declaration under section 134 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act by the Assistant Collector is only the statutory recognition of the rights to which the applicant is entitled under the law. It cannot be said with any decree of plausibility that the right to withdraw or revoke is a natural right of an applicant under Section 134 of the Act. There is no offer or acceptance within the meaning of section 5 of the Indian Contract Act when an application under Section 134 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act is moved by a Sirdar. Even if the meaning of the words used in Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act be stretched to the maximum, it would only mean that his offer has already been accepted, as the money has been tendered and gone into the coffers of the State Government without any sanction or order of the Asst. Collector" 5. The learned counsel has further referred to Jawla v. Smt. Maika 1975 R.D. p. 221 where in a single Member of this court has held as follows:- "The only requirement is that there must be sirdar in exercise on the date of certificate is granted. Hence, though the certificate cannot possibly be granted in favour 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 she cannot be denied the bhumidhari rights for which an application was made by her mother." 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has failed to show any authority to challenge the above pronouncements. I am fully in agreement with the principles enunciated in the above judgments of my learned colleagues. The learned counsel for the opposite parties has failed to show any authority to challenge the above pronouncements. I am fully in agreement with the principles enunciated in the above judgments of my learned colleagues. Accordingly I would hold that Srimati Chandraji having moved an application for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad in her favour and the amount of ten times rent being deposited on her behalf after the Tahsildar had passed the order for deposit of the amount, she became entitled to the grant of the Bhumidhari Sanad. The subsequent death of Srimati Chandraji is immaterial. It would not confer on any person the right to withdraw the application for grant of the Sanad. The courts below have erred in law in holding that the Sanad would not be issued merely because Srimati Chandraji has died subsequently. 7. The only question which remains for consideration is that Srimati Chandraji having died, a Sanad cannot be issued now in the name of a dead person. The position, therefore, would be, as has been held in 1975 R.D. p.221, that the Sanad shall be issued. In the name of the successor of Srimati Chandraji. The Assistant Collector who has to issue the sanad, should now consider as to who the successor of Srimati Chandraji is for the purposes of issue of the Sanad. The Assistant Collector shall also consider whether Ram Shabd, who claims to be the vendee, or Satya Narain who claims to be the brother and actual heir of Srimati Chandraji, would be entitled to succeed her. 8. The result is that I hereby allow this revision, set aside the orders of the courts below, and direct that the Assistant Collector shall now proceed to grant the Bhumidhari Sanad after determining the successor of the deceased tenure-holder Srimati Chandraji.