JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, I.A.S., Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and order dated 15-4-1976 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of the trial court dated 26-9-1975. 2. The fact of the case, in brief, are that the respondent Ram Sagar made an application on 17-1-1975 before the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector 1st Class Mohammadi district Kheri under section 134/136-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the issuance of sanad bhumidhari in respect of half share of gata no. 538/7.61 and 543/0.69. Twenty times of the rent was also deposited. One Hari Ram claiming to be his co-tenant filed an objection on 25-1-1975 alleging that Ram Sagar neither had title nor possession over the plots in question because the land in question was mortgaged on account of a Government Loan obtained by him. 3. On 29-4-1975, one Surendra Singh filed an objection admitting the claims of Ram Sagar. His case is that Ram Sagar had already transferred the land to Surendra Singh and handed over its possession. On 29-4-1975 Ram Sagar himself made an application disowning the application made on 17-1-1975 and denying to have deposited any amount for the issuance of the sanad. His contention is that a civil suit was pending between him and Surendra Singh and the said Surendra Singh was restrained from transferring the property. The learned trial court accepted the allegations of Ram Sagar made through his application date 29-4-1975 and rejected the alleged application dated 17-1-1975 for the issuance of the sanad. It also rejected outright the case of Surendra Singh. Aggrieved by this order dated 26-9-1975, Surendra Singh preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. Sri D.P. Varun, the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision with the observation that the land in dispute was mortgaged in favour of Bhoomi Vikas Bank and so the land could not be transferred in favour of Surendra Singh under section 22 of the Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam. This transaction was made on 17-1-1975 in favour of Surendra Singh for a consideration of Rs. 100 only. The learned Additional Commissioner has found that this transaction was illegal and there was no justification for issuing any bhumidhari sanad. The second appeal has been filed by Surendra Singh against the order dated 15-4-1976 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. This transaction was made on 17-1-1975 in favour of Surendra Singh for a consideration of Rs. 100 only. The learned Additional Commissioner has found that this transaction was illegal and there was no justification for issuing any bhumidhari sanad. The second appeal has been filed by Surendra Singh against the order dated 15-4-1976 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri A.R. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a application for issuance of sanad bhumidhari once made cannot be withdrawn. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on 1973 RD 217. He has further submitted that a suit between the appellant and the respondent was fought. The suit was decided in favour of the appellant and the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed even by the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Shyam Narain, has urged that the alleged transfer is void and hit by section 22 of the Co-operative Land Development Bank Act. He has further submitted that so long the sanad is not issued, the respondent was at liberty to withdraw his application. 5. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. The only question for consideration is whether a sirdar can withdraw an application for issuance of sanad. Divergent views have been expressed by different courts on this point. In Bansidhar v. Dhirajdhari, reported in 1971 RD 371 , it was held that after the order has been made, the applicant cannot change his mind and say that he does not want the declaration. This was held by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court consisting of the Hon'ble Satish Chandra, A.K. Kirty and Hari Swaroop JJ. This ruling was relied and followed by the Board of Revenue in Bal Krishan v. Samanta, reported in 1972 RD 314. A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in Bal Krishan v. Samanta, reported in 1972 RD 314. The Board of Revenue has followed the Full Bench ruling reported in 1971 RD 314. This ruling was relied and followed by the Board of Revenue in Bal Krishan v. Samanta, reported in 1972 RD 314. A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue in Bal Krishan v. Samanta, reported in 1972 RD 314. The Board of Revenue has followed the Full Bench ruling reported in 1971 RD 314. A Division Bench of the Board of Revenue consisting of S.K. Sarkar and B.K. Misra MM, reported in 1974 RD 102 - Awadhesh Saran v. Smt. Gilaria, has held that 'a sirdar having applied for a declaration under section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act has no right to revoke'. Their observation is that 'the question of natural right to revoke would subsist only in a set of circumstances where both the parties are free to revoke what they had contracted. The grant of a declaration under section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act by the Asstt. Collector is only the statutory recognition of the rights to which the applicant is entitled under the law. They have further observed that: "It cannot be said with any degree of plausibility that the right to withdraw or revoke is a natural right of an applicant under section 134 of the Act. There is no offer or acceptance within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Contract Act when an application under section 134 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Revenue Act is moved by a sirdar. Even if the meaning of the words used in section 5 of the Indian Contract Act be stretched to the maximum, it would only mean that his offer has already been accepted, as the money has been tendered and gone into the coffers of the State Government without any sanction or order of the Asstt. Collector." 6. This case is altogether different. In this case, the respondent Ram Sagar has altogether denied to have made any application and deposited the money. The learned Additional Commissioner has not given any finding on the allegations made by Ram Sagar. The learned trial court has, however, inferred that Ram Sagar was made to deposit 20 times of the rent under fraud. Ram Sagar has alleged that the fraud was played upon him by making him drink. This is a finding of fact which is to be accepted. The learned trial court has, however, inferred that Ram Sagar was made to deposit 20 times of the rent under fraud. Ram Sagar has alleged that the fraud was played upon him by making him drink. This is a finding of fact which is to be accepted. Thus, the facts before us are the Ram Sagar did not make the application and deposit 20 times rent of his own accord. Ae made the application for withdrawal and refund after six days of the alleged application made on 17-1-1975. Order for the issuance of the sanad on this application was passed. Under these compelling circumstances, the respondent Ram Sagar had to change his mind and said in an unequivocal terms that he did not want any declaration of bhumidhari right in his favour. I am, therefore, of the view that the ruling Bansidhar v. Dhirajdhar, reported in 1971 RD 371 is fully applicable to this case. This ruling which has been given by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court has not yet been overruled by any superior court of law. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and is consequently dismissed.