JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.K. Sarkar, Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision petition moved on behalf of Srimati Prana against the order dated May 30, 1971 passed by the Tahsildar, Rikapur, district Faizabad in case No. 858 may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have been Srimati Prana in person and the District Government Counsel on behalf of the State of U.P. and gone through the record. 3. Srimati Pranna had on behalf of her mother Srimati Ram Pyari, who was the recorded Sirdar of Khata No. 184, applied for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad on July 4, 1968. On the basis of the report of the Registrar Kanungo, the Tahsildar ordered the deposit of ten times rent which was deposited on the same day. Thereafter the Tahsildar ordered the issue of the Sanad on the same day. There was, however, delay in the issue of the Sanad and on July 2, 1971 Srimati Prana submitted an application that the Sanad be now issued in her name as her mother had died on April 30, 1969. Thereafter the successor of the previous Tahsildar ordered that it was not proper to issue the Sanad and on May 30, 1971 cancelled his predecessors order dated July 4, 1968 regarding the grant of the Sanad. The learned Commissioner has held that the present Tahsildar could not held that the present Tehsildar could not revise his predecessor's order and, therefore, his orders were without jurisdiction. 4. Proceedings regarding grant and cancellation of Bhumidhari Sanad are judicial proceedings. Thus, the order of the previous Tahsildar dated July 4, 1968 for issue of Bhumidhari Sanad was a judicial order. His successor did not possess the revisional or appellate powers to cancel the order of his predecessor. If he was of the view that his predecessor had acted without jurisdiction or erred in the exercise of jurisdiction with illegality and material irregularity, he could have referred the matter to the Board of Revenue under Section 333, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. He, however, did not have the jurisdiction to cancel those orders himself. 5. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner that the order of the learned Tahsildar dated May 30, 1971 is entirely without jurisdiction. Accordingly, I allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. 6. C.C.O. No. 3331 for R.D.