JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This revision has been filed directly in the Board against order dated 22.3.1976 passed by Tahsildar/Asst. Collector 1st Class, Tahsil Manjhanpr district Allahabad ordering the certificate of bhumidhari rights to be issued in favour of Sharda Prasad, Hari Saran and Ram Kishore of plot no. 113, brothers sons of Ram Gulam who had deposited 20 times of rent on 28.11.73 and on that very date had sold the plot to the applicants, vendees sons of Sharda prasad. 2. On 10.1.74 the trial court rejected the objections of Hari Saran dated 29.11.73 and 10.1.74 to the effect that Ram Gulam was the sole recorded tenant and was not insane on the date of the application for issuing sanad. A revision against it filed by Hari Saran was rejected on 30.4.75. Ram Gulam had died during the pendency of the revision on 19. 6.74. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that the order dated 10.1.74 amounted to an order for issuing the sanad when the objections of Hari Saran were rejected and only the compliance of that order by the office ramained. Therefore the sanad ought to have been issued either in the name of Ram Gulam or in the name of the applicants, vendees, revision of Hari Saran having been dismissed. The trial court wrongly over looked order dated 10.1.74 and the order of the Board dated 30.4.75 as by order dated 10.1.74 the Asstt. Collector was factually satisfied about the application was made by Ram Gulam and only ministerial act of preparing the sanad was to be performed. Relying on Bansidhar, v. Smt. Dhirajdhari, 1971 RD 371 , and Dilian v. Ram Rati, 1974 RD 243, and Jayant v. D.D.C. And Others, 1976 RD 91. It was argued that sanad bhumidhari can be issued in the name of a person who deposited 20 times and died afterwards. It was further argued that the sale deed executed by Ram Gulam was not void ab initito and that the order for issuing sanad is material and not issuance of the sanad. Relying on 1978 R.D. page 201 Lalwon v. Smt Narain Devi, 1978 RD 201. It was further argued that the sale deed executed by Ram Gulam was not void ab initito and that the order for issuing sanad is material and not issuance of the sanad. Relying on 1978 R.D. page 201 Lalwon v. Smt Narain Devi, 1978 RD 201. It was further argued that Section 43 of the T.P. Act is of help to the applicants as Ram Gulam had professed to be bhumidhar on the date of the sale. Reliance has been placed on 1973 A.L.J. page 168, 1974 R.D. page 94. It was further argued that Section 73 of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977 is not applicable to the present case as no proceeding stood before January 28, 1977 and orders were already passed for issuance of sanad prior to that date i.e on 10.1.74. That the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside as proper order would have been to issue the sanad in the name of Ram Gulam or to his vendees. 5. It was argued in reply that no sanad legally could have been issued in the name of a deceased tenant. Reliance has been placed on 1957 R.D. page 200, 1955 R.D. page 259 and 1968 R.D. page 99 and 1978 R.D. page 183. It was further argued that under Section 73 of U.P. Act VIII of 1977 the proceeding under Section 134 should be abated. Therefore this revision and original proceeding both are liable to be abated. 6. It has been held in Bansidhar v. Smt. Dhirajdhari and others, 1976 RD 277, that the Assistant Collector when adjudicates upon the matter he acts judicially. If the Assistant Collector is satisfied, he passes an order 'granting' a certificate to that effect' in the context refers to the declaration mentioned in Section 134. That declaration is that the applicant has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137, that is, of a Bhumidhar. So the certificate granted is that the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant 'has' acquired the rights of a Bhumidhar. It was further held "that change of 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". So the certificate granted is that the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant 'has' acquired the rights of a Bhumidhar. It was further held "that change of 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". It is thus clear and well settled that the change of status of a Sirdar into a bhumidhar occurs when Assistant Collector makes judicial grant i.e. when the order is passed by him that the applicant has become bhumidhar. The grant of actual sanad of bhumidhari follows such order and is completed by his ministerial staff which may be issued on any subsequent date, but is not material for the change of the status-quo of a Sirdar to that of a bhumidhar. Although the applicant becomes soon from the date of the deposit of the prescribed amount of money. The above Full Bench case had been followed in Ram Behari Rai v. Rama Nand, 1976 RD 277. 7. It is also well settled by the above Full Bench case of 1971 R.D. page 371 that once the money is deposited for acquisition of bhumidhari rights the money cannot be withdrawn by the applicant or his successor or in interest on the ground that the sanad is not wanted, which has been followed in Nageshwari Devi v. Ganeshwari Devi, 1976 R.D. 91. 8. It is also well settled that if the order has not been passed for the grant of the sanad i.e. if the judicial order has not been passed that the applicant has become bhumidhar and the death of the applicant takes place the sanad cannot be granted in his name although it can be granted in the names of his heirs but Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act will not apply to his heirs and if any such grant has been made in the name of the deceased person after his death such grant is a nullity as has been held in Raghunandan Singh v. Vishvant Singh, 1978 R.D. 183. 9. 1957 R.D. Page no. 200, 1955 R.D. Page 259 are not at all applicable to this present case. 10. 9. 1957 R.D. Page no. 200, 1955 R.D. Page 259 are not at all applicable to this present case. 10. In the present case by order dated January 10, 1974 by which the two objections of Hari Narain were dismissed and his revision application against that order was dismissed by the Board as mentioned above. No order was passed that applicant Ram Gulam has became Bhumidhar, therefore, no judicial grant of sanad was made in the life time of Ram Gulam who had died during the pendency of that revision on August 101, 1974, therefore, no judicial grant could have been made in his name as it would have been a nullity, therefore, the impugned order of March 23, 1978 does not suffer with any illegality and was rightly passed in favour of the legal heirs of deceased applicant Ram Gulam. The argument that by application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act the order should have been passed for grant of Sanad in the name of the vendees application has got no force and ruling reported in 1968 R.D. 99 (H.C.) Ram Deo v. S.D.O., U.P. Lucknow, Camp at Deoria and other is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was held 'that, the deceased Sirdar did not become a Bhumidhar and hence did not obtain transferable interest in the holding and the sale deed executed by him could act validly vest any title in the transferee. "Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act gives expression to the rule of estoppel as well as the doctrine of equity which regards that as done which, ought to be done. Enquiry acts in personum. It does not run with the estate. Under this equity, if deceased Sirdar had acquired the Bhumidhari interest in the Sirdari holding subsequently, that interest would go to feed the estoppel against, him; and the transfer executed by the will operate on the subsequently acquired interest. But the person who is affected by the equity original Sirdar, will not enable the transferor personally. If he does not acquire any interest. Section 43 will not apply and the subsequent acquisition of the Bhumidhari interest by another person, even though he be the successor of the original Sirdar, will not enable the transferee to reap any benefit of the acquisition. If he does not acquire any interest. Section 43 will not apply and the subsequent acquisition of the Bhumidhari interest by another person, even though he be the successor of the original Sirdar, will not enable the transferee to reap any benefit of the acquisition. Before Section 43 can be applied, the transferee has to prove that the transferor fraudulently or erroneously represented that he was authorised to transfer the property. Such a finding is a condition precedent to the applicability of the section." The rulings reported in Deshraj v. Lal Singh, 1973 A.L.J. 168 and Istiyaq Ahmad v. Commissioner, Varanasi Division, 1974 R.D. 81 are not at all applicable to the present case as in the case Bhumidhari Sanad was issued legally to the applicant and the dispute was between subsequent vendors or decree are the previous vendee to whom the land was sold when the money was deposited, therefore, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act was rightly made applicable. 11. The last question for determination is whether the revision along with the proceeding, are liable to be abated under Section 73 of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977 or not. The argument that no proceeding existed on January 22, 1977 the orders dated January 10, 1974 and even the order in question dated February 22, 1976 both were passed before January 23, 1977, therefore, neither this revision nor the proceeding can be abated. Section 73 of that act runs as follows: - "73. Transitory provisions: - (1) notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force all proceedings for acquisition of Bhumidhari rights under Sections 134 and 135 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, as they stood immediately before January 28, 1977, and all proceedings arising therefrom pending on such date before any court or authority shall abate. (2) Where any proceeding has abated under sub-section (1) the amount deposited for the acquisition of such rights shall be refunded to the person depositing the same or to his legal representatives as the case may be." This section provides for abatement of proceedings under Sections 134 and 135 along with all proceedings arising therefrom pending on such date before any court or authority this revision is in the continuance of the proceeding under Sec. 134, therefore, both are liable to be abated. I am supported in this view of mine by 1977 R.D. 203. 12. Although this revision had got no force and on merits is liable to be rejected but this revision along with the proceeding both are hereby abated under Section 73 of U.P. Act No. VIII of 1977.