Shri Narayan Shukla, J.: - Heard Mr. Vishal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the private opposite parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved with order dated 30.10.1979 passed by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Faizabad i.e. opposite party no.1 in Revision No.1516/1972 setting aside the order dated 3.11.1972 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad. 3. The dispute relates to Khata no. 91, situate at village Manwarpur, Pargana Bidhar, Tehsil Tanda, District Faizabad. During the course of consolidation proceeding, the opposite party no.5 filed an objection claiming her right of 1/3 share and subsequently share over the land in dispute on the basis of recording her name in the revenue records in place of petitioner's maternal uncle, who executed gift deed in her favour on 5.6.1963. The Consolidation Officer, Faizabad i.e. opposite party no.3 rejected the objection of opposite party no.5 by means of order dated 13.12.1971 on the ground that donor was only Sirdar without having any right to gift the property. Accordingly, he also held that gift was void. Against the order dated 13.12.1971 she filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Faizabad, who upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Faizabad with the observation that Mr. Ramdaur Singh though deposited ten times of rent for grant of bhumidhari certificate, but the same was not issued to him, therefore he never acquired right of bhumidhari and also never acquired right of transfer by way of gift, being aggrieved with which she filed revision before the Joint Director of Consolidation,Faizabad. During proceeding of revision Mr. Ramdaur Singh died and then dispute arose regarding his heir-ship. Therefore, the Joint Director of Consolidation remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to settle the dispute of heir-ship of Mr. Ramdaur Singh, who adjudicated upon the same and held that Mr. Rampyare Singh is a nearest relative and legal heir of Ramdaur Singh. He referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for its final decision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation,Faizabad considering the fact that since ten times rent was already deposited for grant of bhumidhari certificate, which could not have been refunded observed that Mr. Rampyare Singh is a nearest relative and legal heir of Ramdaur Singh. He referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for its final decision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation,Faizabad considering the fact that since ten times rent was already deposited for grant of bhumidhari certificate, which could not have been refunded observed that Mr. Ramdaur Singh had become Bhumidhar, accordingly, by setting aside the order passed by the court below he issued direction to the Revenue Officer to record the name of opposite party no.5 against half share of gata no 91 on the basis of said gift deed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since bhumidhari certificate was not granted to Mr. Ramduar Singh or his legal heir, there was no question of treating him as bhumidhar having the right of transfer from the date of deposition of rent. 5. On the other hand, Mr. S.K.Mehrotra,learned counsel for the opposite parties 4 and 5 invited the attention of this Court towards sections 134 and 137 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act, 1950 which are reproduced hereinunder:- “134. Acquisition of bhumidhari rights by a sirdar, (1) if a sirdar belonging to the class mentioned in clause (a) of Section 131 pays or offers to pay to the credit of the State Government an amount equal to ten times the land revenue payable or deemed to be payable on the date of application for the land for which he is the sirdar, he shall, upon an application duly made in that behalf to an Assistant Collector, be entitled, with effect from the date on which the amount has been deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137 in respect of such land: Provided that the rights to pay or offer to pay the amount aforementioned shall cease on the expiry of three months from the date to be notified by the State Government. Explanation1- In this sub-section 'land' includes shares in land. Explanation II- for the purpose of this section the land revenue payable shall- (a) in respect of land referred to in the proviso to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 246 be an amount arrived at after all the increases have been given effect to; and (b) in respect of land to which the proviso to section 247 applies, be an amount determined at hereditary rates under that Section. (1) the amount referred to in sub-section (1) may be paid in cash or, if the State Government, so prescribes, in form of bonds or otherwise.” Section 137. Grant of certificate- (1) if the application has been duly made and the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to the declaration mentioned in Section 134, he shall grant a certificate to that effect. (2) Upon the grant of the certificate, under sub-section (1), the sirdar shall, from the date on which the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 134 has been deposited: (a) become and be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the holding or the share in respect of which the certificate has been granted, and (b) be liable for payment of such reduced amount on account of land revenue for the holding or his share therein, as the case may be, done half of the amount of land revenue payable or deemed to be payable by him therefore, on date of application. Provided further that in the cases referred to in Explanation II of section 134 the sirdar shall, during the period a reduced amount is payable in accordance with Section 246 or 247, be liable for payment of one-half of the amount payable from time to time. Explanation-for the purposes of clause (b) the land revenue payable by a sirdar on the date aforesaid shall, where it exceeds an amount double that computed at the hereditary rates applicable, be deemed to be equal to such amount. (2A) Where the amount referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 134 is deposited on a date other than the first day of the agricultural year, the land revenue payable by the bhumidhar under clause (b) of sub-section (2) for the remainder of the agricultural year in which the amount is deposited shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed.? 6. He also cited some decisions on this point which are reproduced hereinunder:- Dilan Vs. Smt. Ram Rati (FB) (B.R), 1974 R.D. 243. The reference for decision before the Board of Revenue was as to whether the applicant can withdraw his application made under Section 134 duly backed by deposit before the date of the judicial order of the Assistant Collector granting him the Sanad. Smt. Ram Rati (FB) (B.R), 1974 R.D. 243. The reference for decision before the Board of Revenue was as to whether the applicant can withdraw his application made under Section 134 duly backed by deposit before the date of the judicial order of the Assistant Collector granting him the Sanad. The majority view answered the reference in the following manner:- “Thus, in conclusion, I am of the view that a Sirdar having made up his mind to become a Bhumidhar and in pursuance of that intention makes the deposit of the requisite amount in the Government Treasure, he will have no option, or inherent right to withdraw the application. On the other hand he has the indefeasible right to acquire Bhumidhari Sanad, and the State Government has no option of rejecting this application, except in circumstances specified in the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and the Sanad must be granted to him.” 7. The Full Bench of this Court considered the same very question in the case of Banshidhar Vs. Dhirjadhari and others AIR 1971 Allahabad 526. In this case one Mr. Udai Shankar made an application for being declared bhumidhar of the holding. He deposited ten times of the rent. Thereupon the same day after scrutinizing the application, the Tehsildar ordered. “Declared bhumidhar, Issue Sanad.” 8. Though the actual sanad was not issued, this order was given effect by mutating the name of Udai Shankar in the revenue papers as bhumidhar in place of sirdar. He executed several sale needs of plots of land. The vendees obtained possession and applied for mutation. In due course, their names were also mutated in place of Udai Shankar. He died issueless on October, 25, 1967. Before that, however, on January 28, 1967 he had executed a will in favour of the petitioners. 9. After the death of Udai Shankar, his widow Smt. Dhirajadhari, respondent no.1 moved an application before the Assistant Collector, She prayed that the bhumidhari certificates may not be prepared in respect of the two holdings, The ten times of the rent deposited by her husband may be refunded to her. The Assistant Collector rejected that application. He directed that the certificates be prepared in the name of Udai Shankar and issued to the successor of Udai Shankar. Feeling aggrieved Smt.Dhairajadhari filed a revision. The Assistant Collector rejected that application. He directed that the certificates be prepared in the name of Udai Shankar and issued to the successor of Udai Shankar. Feeling aggrieved Smt.Dhairajadhari filed a revision. The Commissioner made a reference to the Board of Revenue recommending that the order of the Tahsildar be set aside. The Board of Revenue was of the view that, since the bhumidhari sanads, had not been issued till the death of Udai Shankar, he did not become a bhumidhar. He remained a sirdar. As such he was not competent to executed sale deeds or a will of the sirdari holding. Smt.Dhirajadhari was entitled to change her mind and to demand refund of the ten times of the rent deposited by her husband. The application of Smt. Dhirajadhari was allowed. The order of the Board of was challenged before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The Hon'ble Single Judge referred the matter to the Full Bench. 10. The question before the Full Bench of this Court for decision was as under :- “The question is when does a sirdar, who has made an application under section 134, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and made the necessary deposit acquire the status of a bhumidhar.” 11. The Full Bench of this Court has held that Mr. Udai Shankar became Bhumidhar on 24th June, 1964, when the Assistant Collector made the order. After his death, his widow was not entitled to make an application for the refund of the deposit made by him, or, to say that the certificate be not granted. The ministerial act of issuing the certificate has to be completed, once an order has been made .The order of Assistant Collector was justified in directing that the certificate be prepared in the relevant form in the name of the deceased Bhumidhar and be delivered to his successor. The ministerial act of preparing and delivering the certificate is not a judicial order; and so the principle that a judicial order cannot be made against a dead person will not apply. The certificate only records the fact that on the date of the order the applicant became a Bhumidhar. The death of the applicant after that date is immaterial to the preparation or issuance of the certificate. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deonandan and another Vs. The certificate only records the fact that on the date of the order the applicant became a Bhumidhar. The death of the applicant after that date is immaterial to the preparation or issuance of the certificate. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deonandan and another Vs. Ram Saran and others 2001 (19) LCD 257 Supreme Court considered the provisions of Sections 134 and 137 of the Act and observed as under:- “Section 134 from its plain language, indicates and shows that on the application being made and 10 times the land revenue being paid the sirdar becomes entitled 'with effect from the date on which the amount had been deposited' to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137 of the Act. The section clearly specifies the date with effect, from which the rights would stand acquired. The date is the one on which the amount contemplated by Section 134 is deposited. This clearly obviates the uncertainly of the point of time when the title is transferred by fixing the date as being the once when the amount is deposited. It would be immaterial as to when the declaration under secretion 137 is made because that declaration must necessarily take effect from the date when the amount is deposited.” 13. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions Mr. S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel for the opposite parties 4 and 5 submitted that once ten times rent was deposited, it was not open to Mr. Ramdaur Singh to change his mind and to take refund of the rent and on the date of deposition of rent itself he became bhumidhar for all purposes. Therefore, the gift deed executed by Mr. Ramdaur Singh in favour of opposite party no.5 is valid. Accordingly, Joint Director of Consolidation passed the order impugned in which there is no error. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. So far as the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme court is concerned, that is not disputed but it has to be applied in view of the facts of the case. In the present case, the deposition of ten times rent for grant of bhumidhari certificate by Mr. Ramdaur Singh is not disputed. The gift deed executed by him in favour of opposite party no.5 is also not disputed. In the present case, the deposition of ten times rent for grant of bhumidhari certificate by Mr. Ramdaur Singh is not disputed. The gift deed executed by him in favour of opposite party no.5 is also not disputed. Before grant of certificate he submitted an application for refund of the rent is also not disputed. Definitely under the provisions of law, the certificate granted subsequently relates back to the date of deposition of rent and sirdar became bhumidhar from the date of deposition of ten times rent, but it cannot be disputed that grant of certificate which is judicial act by the competent authority is also necessary. Issuance of certificate, may be ministerial act as has been observed in the decisions referred hereinabove by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but once it is not in dispute that the certificate was never granted to Mr. Ramdaur Singh, he cannot be said to be Bhumidhar from the date of deposition of rent. It is also clear that it is the order of the competent authority which declares any sirdar as bhumidhar. Therefore, I am of the view that unless there is judicial grant of certificate by the competent authority nobody can be said to be bhumidhar from the date of deposition of rent. 15. In the present case, there is clear finding of Settlement Officer Consolidation that the Assistant Collector never passed the order for grant of certificate; whereas the Joint Director of Consolidation failed to appreciate this fact on the ground that sirdar became Bhumidhar from the date of deposition of ten times rent. Though the Joint Director of Consolidation considered this fact that bhumidhari certificate was never granted even then the objection of opposite party no.5 was allowed on the ground that Mr. Ramdaur Singh executed gift deed to opposite party no.5 and also handed over the possession to her and under the amended Act being Sirdar she became bhumidhar. He further observed that since Mr. Ramdaur Singh died during the course of litigation, the opposite party no. 5 is entitled to be recorded in the revenue records in his place, but he failed to appreciate the fact that under the order of Consolidation Officer it was Mr. Ram Pyare Singh, who declared his legal heir, therefore, being legal heir, under the amended Act only he could become bhumidhar not the opposite party no.5. 5 is entitled to be recorded in the revenue records in his place, but he failed to appreciate the fact that under the order of Consolidation Officer it was Mr. Ram Pyare Singh, who declared his legal heir, therefore, being legal heir, under the amended Act only he could become bhumidhar not the opposite party no.5. She could have perfect her right only on the basis of gift executed by Mr. Ramdaur Singh in favour of whom bhumidhari certificate was not granted. 16. Therefore, I am of the view that under the amended provisions of the Act, she could not be held to achieve the status of bhumidhari as she was never recorded sirdar. Thus, I am of the view that the order passed on 30.10.1979 by the Joint Director of Consolidation, Faizabad suffers from error and the same is hereby quashed. In the result, the writ petition is allowed.