JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, Member. - This is a revision petition against the order dated October 16, 1971 passed by A.S.D.O., Salempur, district Deoria in a mutation case. 2. The facts of the case are that Mst. Deoraji the recorded tenure-holder executed a sale deed of the disputed land on December 20, 1967 in favour of Rama Nand. She died on June 24, 1969. Thereafter, Mst. Ram Kesri, Mst. Har Kesri and Mst. Radhika applied for mutation of their names over the disputed land in place of Mst. Deoraji claiming to be her daughters. Rama Nand filed objection alleging that Mst. Deoraji had executed a sale deed of the disputed land in his favour on December 20, 1967. He claimed mutation on the basis of sale deed in his favour. On August, 26, 1969, Tahsildar ordered mutation in favour of Mst. Ram Kesri and others. Rama Nand did not file any revision against the order dated August 26, 1969. On October 25, 1968, Rama Nand filed a mutation application before the A.S.D.O. on the basis of sale deed dated December 20, 1967 executed by Mst. Deoraji in his favour. Mst Ram Kesri and others filed objection alleging that the sale deed was fictitious. They also alleged that Mst. Deoraji was only a Sirdar when she executed the alleged sale deed. They also alleged that the order for mutation of their names over the land in dispute had already been passed on August 26, 1969. 3. On October 16, 1971, the A.S.D.O., Salempur, district Deoria ordered mutation of the name of Rama Nand vendee over the disputed land. The present revision is against the order dated October 16, 1971. 4. On February 25, 1972, the Additional Commissioner recommended that the order passed by the A.S.D.O. may be set aside as the Tahsildar had already ordered mutation of the names of Mst. Ram Kesri and others over the disputed land. He observed that Ramanand had not filed revision against the order dated August 26, 1969 passed by the Tahsildar and it had become final. 5. Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Mst. Ram Kesri and others had applied for mutation of their names over the disputed land on the death of Mst. Deoraji. He further argued that Rama Nand filed objection in those proceedings claiming mutation in his favour on the basis of sale deed executed by Mst. 5. Firstly, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Mst. Ram Kesri and others had applied for mutation of their names over the disputed land on the death of Mst. Deoraji. He further argued that Rama Nand filed objection in those proceedings claiming mutation in his favour on the basis of sale deed executed by Mst. Deo Raji. He further argued that the Tahsildar ordered mutation in favour of Mst. Ram Kesri and others on August, 26, 1969. He further argued that Rama Nand did not file any revision against that order and it had become final. He contended that, under the circumstances, mutation should not have been ordered in favour of Rama Nand by the A.S.D.O. Secondly, he argued that Mst. Deoraji died on June 25, 1968 and the Bhumidhari Sanand was issued after her death on March 7, 1969. He contended that Bhumidhari Sanad could not be issued in favour of a dead person. He further contended that Mst. Deoraji being Sirdar only she had no right to execute sale deed on December 20, 1967 in favour of Rama Nand. He place reliance on the case Meghu alias Mandu v. State of U.P. and others, 1968 R.D. 332 in which it was held that:- "Where the Sirdar died before the certificate was granted the certificate granted in his favour was an ineffective and meaningless document and could not confer the status of Bhumidhar on a person who is already dead, he has no power to transfer his Sirdari plots and the sale deeds are void." 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the order for issuing Bhumidhari Sanad had been passed in the life time of Mst. Deoraji. He further argued that the change of status of a Sirdar into a Bhumidhar occurs when the Assistant Collector makes the judicial grant. He contended that the event of the ministerial grant or its issuance was immaterial. He further argued that in the case Meghu alias Mandu v. State of U.P. and others, 1968 R.D. 332 the event of the order and of the delivery of the certificate were neither argued nor considered. He contended that the event of the ministerial grant or its issuance was immaterial. He further argued that in the case Meghu alias Mandu v. State of U.P. and others, 1968 R.D. 332 the event of the order and of the delivery of the certificate were neither argued nor considered. He further argued that case was considered in the Full Bench case Banshi Dhar v. Smt. Dhirajadhari and others, 1971 R.D. 371 in which it was held that :- "The applicant has to make the deposit and then, after making an application, to satisfy the Assistant Collector that he is entitled to the declaration. Thereafter, he is not required to do anything further. The rest has to be done by the office of the Assistant Collector. After the order has been made the applicant cannot change his mind and say that he does not want the declaration. The change of a status of a Sirdar into a Bhumidhar occurs when the Assistant Collector makes the judicial grant; the event of the ministerial grant or issuance is immaterial. After his death, his widow was not entitled to make an application for the refund of the deposit made by him or to say that the certificate be not granted." He contended that Mst. Deoraji had become Bhumidhar of the disputed land when she executed the sale deed in favour of the opposite party. He further contended that the opposite party Rama Nand became. Bhumidhar of the disputed land on the basis of sale deed in his favour. He further argued that Rama Nand had filed objection against the mutation application of Mst. Ram Kesri and others and had claimed mutation in his favour on the basis of sale deed executed by Mst. Deoraji. He further argued that the Tahsildar had no right to decide the case based on transfer. He contended that the order dated August, 26, 1969 passed by the Tahsildar being without jurisdiction it is to be ignored. Ram Kesri and others and had claimed mutation in his favour on the basis of sale deed executed by Mst. Deoraji. He further argued that the Tahsildar had no right to decide the case based on transfer. He contended that the order dated August, 26, 1969 passed by the Tahsildar being without jurisdiction it is to be ignored. He placed reliance on the case Shiv Murat v. Ramesh etc., 1974 R.D. 46 in which it was held that 'if a question of transfer arises whether by way of application or by way of objections the case should be transferred by the Tahsildar to the S.D.O. because if he decides the case finally he will have to pronounce on objections which involved the question of transfer and thus he will be exceeding his jurisdiction and competence." Lastly, he argued that the order passed by the A.S.D.O. ordering mutation in favour of Rama Nand is correct and there is no jurisdictional error in it. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. In the case Meghu alias Mandu v. The State of U.P. and others, 1968 R.D. 332 the event of the order and of the delivery of the certificate were neither argued nor considered. That case was considered in the Full Bench case Banshi Dhar v. Smt. Dhirajadhari and others, 1971 R.D (H.C) 371 in which it was held that the change of status of a Sirdar into a Bhumidhar occurs when the Assistant Collector makes the Judicial grant and that the event of the ministerial grant on its issuance was immaterial. The order for the grant of Sanad in favour of Mst. Deoraji and had been passed in her life time and she had become Bhumidhar on that basis. The event of the ministerial. The position, therefore, comes to this that Mst. Deoraji had right to execute sale deed in favour of Rama Nand on December 20, 1967. 8. Now I would like to consider the effect of the mutation order dated August 26, 1969 passed by Tahsildar in favour of Mst. Ram Kesri and others. Rama Nand had filed objection against the mutation application of Ram Kesri and others and had claimed mutation in his favour on the basis of sale deed. The Tahsildar, after considering the case of the parties, ordered mutation in favour of Mst. Ram Kesri and others. Rama Nand had filed objection against the mutation application of Ram Kesri and others and had claimed mutation in his favour on the basis of sale deed. The Tahsildar, after considering the case of the parties, ordered mutation in favour of Mst. Ram Kesri and others who claimed to be the daughters of Mst. Deo Raji. Rama Nand submitted to the jurisdiction of Tahsildar and did not raise any objection in that regard before him. He also did not file any revision against the order dated August, 26, 1969 which became final. He having willingly accepted the jurisdiction of Tahsildar cannot now be permitted to say that the order dated August 26, 1969 passed by him was without jurisdiction. The case Chandrabhan v. Chotey Lal and others applies in all fours on this point. In the case Shiv Murat v. Ramesh etc., 1974 R.D. 46 the jurisdiction of Tahsildar to decide the case had been challenged but in the mutation case filed by Mst. Ram Kesri and others the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar had been willingly accepted. Thus the case reported in 1974 R.D. at page 46 does not apply to the facts of the present case. The learned A.S.D.O. acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally in deciding the present mutation case in favour of Rama Nand when a decision against him already existed in so far as the mutation proceedings were concerned. Agreeing with the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner I set aside the order dated October 16, 1971 passed by the A.S.D.O. and reject the mutation application filed by Rama Nand. Revision is allowed in the light of the above observations.