JUDGMENT H.N. Agrawal, Member. - I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to contest the revision in spite of notice. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner has erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction in deciding the appeal not on merits but on a technical objection to the effect that the vendee Ata Hussain had not been impleaded. 3. The correct legal position is as follows: In proceedings under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, the vendee is not a necessary party. Only the recorded co-tenure-holders are necessary parties in these proceedings. The question for determination is merely whether an application for grant of Bhumidhari declaration is to be granted and if so, for what share. Only after Bhumidari declaration has been granted, the question of sale of the interest of the grantee and of acquisition of any interest by the vendee can arise. Where, however, the grant of Bhumidhari declaration is itself in question, the determination of the vendee's rights is premature. 4. However, when a vendee seeks to be impleaded in these proceedings, it is in the judicial discretion of the Court to allow such impleadment in order solely to determine whether Bhumidhari declaration is to be granted to the vendor or not. No finding on the vendee's rights is, however, to be recorded. The learned Additional Commissioner has erred in giving a verdict on the vendee's rights. 5. In the present case, the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the vendee Ata Hussain had not been impleaded. It was, however, open to him to order impleadment of Ata Hussain in the appeal if he so thought fit. 6. The result is that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, and direct that he shall hear and decide the appeal on merits in the light of above observations.