JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated May 23, 1972 of the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad allowing the appeal No. 15 of 1970 and remanding the case after setting aside the order dated July 23, 1970 of the Assistant Collector, cancelling the Bhumidhari Sanad. 2. One Anrudh Singh the present revisionist, had moved an application before the Tahsildar to the effect that a fraud had been committed by one Babu Lal who had got a sale deed executed of certain land. The sale deed was shown to be executed by one Smt. Yashoda Kunwar who had died on October 23, 1969 but an application for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad after making requisite deposit was made in her name on October 28, 1969. The learned Tahsildar held that it was not Smt. Yashoda Kunwar who had deposited twenty times of the land revenue and applied for the acquisition of Bhumidhari Sanad on October 28, 1969. He, therefore, ordered that the order dated October 28, 1969 for the grant of Sanad be cancelled, the amount deposited be forfeited and the Gaon Sabha may proceed under Section 194 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act since Smt. Yashoda Kunwar had died heirless. The learned Additional Commissioner has set aside the order of the Tahsildar on the sole ground that Anrudh Singh was not an interested person. He also directed the parties to get their rights declared in a competent court. 3. The ground taken in the revision are that the Tahsildar after a detailed scrutiny of the evidence held that Smt. Yashoda Kunwar had actually not applied for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad and that somebody other than Smt. Yashoda Kunwar acted as an imposter and deceived the Tahsildar in obtaining the Bhumidhari Sanad of the holding which ultimately would have gone to the Gaon Sabha in the event of the death of Smt. Yashoda and the imposter having obtained the Sanad executed a sale deed of the holding for a song and the purchaser must also have been in the scheme of these things and the learned Addl. Commissioner has acted beyond his jurisdiction in remanding the case for further enquiry on a point not even relevant to the case. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner's view is erroneous in law. Commissioner has acted beyond his jurisdiction in remanding the case for further enquiry on a point not even relevant to the case. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner's view is erroneous in law. Section 137-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and L.R. Act states that a Bhumidhari Sanad granted under Section 137 may be cancelled or modified on the application of the State or any person interested. The phrase any person interested does not mean a person having any rights in the land. It merely means any person who takes an interest in the matter either for public benefit or for any other suitable reason. In the present case the revisionist. Anrudh Singh, is interested in the matter as he wants to safeguard the property of the Gaon Sabha and the State and to prevent fraud. This view has already been held in Gaon Sabha, Ramgarh v. Bhaggal etc., 1964 R.D. 250 and in other cases. The learned Tahsildar has certainly acted properly in the exercise of jurisdiction in cancelling the Bhumidhari Sanad which had been obtained as a result of fraud in order to deprive the Gaon Sabha of the land. 5. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the first appeal on merits. He shall also give due notice to the revisionist, Anrudh Singh, as well as the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. to contest the appeal filed by Babu Lal. The learned Additional Commissioner shall also record a finding on the question whether or not the application for the grant of Sanad was moved by Smt. Yashoda Kunwar and whether or not any fraud was committed by the purchaser, Babu Lal, or any other person.