Judgement – Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated 20-10-1983 (Annexure NO.5 to the writ petition) whereby the Board of Revenue allowed the review petition and the judgment dated 30-8-1982 passed in Second Appeal No. 23 of 1979-80 has been set aside. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Lokendra Dobhal has submitted that now in view of the amendment Act NO.8 of 1977, every Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights, who was recorded Sirdar has become Bhumidhar with transferable right without paying ten times of land revenue. In view of the amendment, the name of the petitioners had already been recorded as Bhumidhar with transferable rights. The order passed by the learned Board of Revenue now by operation of law had become ineffective by which bhumidhari Sanad has been cancelled. 4. Brief facts of the case are that a bhumidhari Sanad had been granted in favour of the petitioners on 16-9-1972 after depositing 20 times of land revenue. The respondent no. 4, Smt. Urmila Devi Jain, filed an application under Section 137 -A of the U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 in the Court of Tahsildar Pauri Garhwal on the ground that the petitioners had obtained bhumidhari Sanad fraudulently and that she was disabled. The Tahsildar after hearing the parties, cancelled bhumidhari Sanad vide order dated 26-10-1979. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred Appeal No. 79-80 Mangal Singh and others Vs. Urmila Devi, which was dismissed by the Commissioner by a cryptic order without assigning any reasons vide order dated 27-8-1980. The petitioners further went up in Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue against the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal confirming the judgment passed by the trial court dated 26-10-1979 thereby cancelling the bhumidhari Sanad of the appellant Mangal Singh. The petitioners further went up in Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue against the judgment and order passed by the learned Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal confirming the judgment passed by the trial court dated 26-10-1979 thereby cancelling the bhumidhari Sanad of the appellant Mangal Singh. The Board of Revenue after hearing both the pal1ies, vide order dated 30-8-1982 set aside the judgment and order of both the courts below and dismissed the application filed by Smt. Urmila Devi, on the ground that the proceedings under Section 137 -A of the U.P.ZA and L.R. Act are summary in nature and the title must be got declared by the aggrieved party in a competent court and not in any indirect manner through summary proceedings. As regards the case of cancellation of Sanad bhumidhari, it cannot be seen whether the entry made in favour of the petitioner was wrong or right. 5. Against the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue, a review petition was filed by Urmila Devi Jain, respondent no. 4, in Second Appeal No. 23 of 1979-80, which was allowed on 30-8-1982 on the ground that the error apparent on the face of record exists in the judgment. The review petition was heard by the same Member of the Board of Revenue and it was allowed on 20-10-1983 and it was observed that the appeal would be heard after obtaining trial court record of grant of Bhumidhari Sanad. 6. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has set aside his earlier finding in which it was held that the proceedings under Section 134 are summary in nature. While deciding the second appeal, the principles only were considered and there was a presumption of recorded entry of Sirdari of Mangal Singh and others in 1379 or 1380 Fasli but absence of trial court record of grant of san ad turns it into an error apparent on the face of record. The concealment of facts as to how the Sirdari entry was secured, detailed in earlier para, could not escape consideration in appeal, particularly when the learned trial Court considered and gave its finding on them and non-consideration amounted to an error apparent. The concealment of facts as to how the Sirdari entry was secured, detailed in earlier para, could not escape consideration in appeal, particularly when the learned trial Court considered and gave its finding on them and non-consideration amounted to an error apparent. It was also observed that disability of Smt. Jain is another factor which has escaped consideration and the fact that she was a widow since 1946 is so glaring that its effect could not be overlooked in the proceedings under Section 137 -A. if not in proceedings under Section 134. 7. It was not disputed by the parties that there was an entry of sirdari in the name of petitioners Mangal Singh and others in 1379 or 1380 Fasli and it was also not disputed that the procedure of Section 134 to 137 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act are summary in nature. The learned Board of Revenue gave a categorical finding while allowing the Second Appeal that the title must be got declared by the aggrieved party in a competent court and not in any indirect manner through these summary proceedings. It was also mentioned that as regards the case for cancellation of sanad bhumidhari, I do not find any justification for the same and since the learned Commissioner has not given any finding worth the name, it becomes necessary to look into the finding of fact. The finding was absolutely correct. If the entry was made wrongly by the revenue authorities, it is open to the respondent no.4 to file a regular suit to correct the entries made in favour of the 'petitioners, but as far as scope of Sections 134 to 137 in the proceedings, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine whether the entry was made in revenue record wrongly and the person in whose favour the entry was made was not entitled for sirdari rights. The Second Appeal was rightly allowed by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 30-8-1982 and the review application has been wrongly allowed and the order under review is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 8. By the amendment by U.P. Act 8 of 1977, provisions of Sections 134 to 136 and 137 -A have been deleted. The only Section 137 for the cancellation of declaration exists, which reads as under : "137. 8. By the amendment by U.P. Act 8 of 1977, provisions of Sections 134 to 136 and 137 -A have been deleted. The only Section 137 for the cancellation of declaration exists, which reads as under : "137. Cancellation of declaration.- (1) A declaration granted under section 135 as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1977, may, on the application of any person interested (including the State Government), be cancelled or modified by the Assistant Collector on any of the following grounds, namely (a) that the declaration was obtained fraudulently by making of a false suggestion, or by the concealment from the Assistant Collector or something material to the case; (b) that the declaration was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant thereof, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; (c) that a decree or order passed by a competent court in a suit or other proceedings with respect to the holding for which declaration was made shows that the applicant was not entitled thereto. (2) Where the declaration is cancelled under sub-section(1), the person depositing the amount shall be entitled to its refund. " 9. It has been submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners are recorded bhumidhar with transferable rights by operation of law, as has been amended by U.P. Act 8 of 1977 w.e.f. 28-1-1977. 10. In view of the discussion made in foregoing paragraphs, the only remedy available to the respondent no.4 is to file a suit for declaration under (sic) in a competent court to challenge the entries made in favour of the petitioner. Under the proceedings under Section 137 of the ZA and L. R. Act, it could not be seen whether the entries existing in the revenue record were correct or not at the time when the application for bhumidhari sanad was moved and the same can be examined in regular suit, hence the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order under challenge passed by the Board of Revenue in review petition, dated 20-10-1983 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 30-8-1982 in Second Appeal No. 23 of 1979-80 by the respondent nO.1 is maintained. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order under challenge passed by the Board of Revenue in review petition, dated 20-10-1983 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 30-8-1982 in Second Appeal No. 23 of 1979-80 by the respondent nO.1 is maintained. However, the respondent no.4, Smt. Urmila Devi Jain can file a regular suit in competent Court to challenge the entries made in the revenue record as mentioned above. 12. Interim order dated 29-11-1983 is vacated.