K.N Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.A Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite parties. A concurrent finding of fact was recorded by opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 3 holding that the transferor Srimati Chandraji, widow of Bhagauti was Sirdar at the time when she is alleged to have executed sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968 in favour of the petitioners in respect of land of Khata No. 18. Petitioners alleged that she died after the execution of the sale-deed and although no Sanad Bhumidhari was issued in the name of Srimati Chandraji but order for grant of Sanad was passed by the Assistant Collector in her favour in respect of land of Khata No. 18, which she had sold to the petitioners through registered sale-deed dated 20th June, 1968. Petitioners have not filed copy of the alleged order for grant of Sanad Bhumidhari passed by the Assistant Collector, which is said to have been passed in her lifetime. A concurrent finding has been recorded that no order for grant of Sanad was passed during her lifetime and as such, she could not dispose of land of Khata No. 18 being Sirdar. In this view of the matter, the opposite-parties Nos. 1 to 3 have committed no error in refusing mutation in the name of the petitioners on the land of Khata No. 18. Srimati Chandraji had also sold, through the said sale-deed, her share in Khata No. 3, of which she was Bhumidhar and as such the sale-deed, was held to be valid so far as her share in Khata No. 3 was concerned.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since Chandraji had deposited ten times rent on 20th June, 1968 and thereafter on the same day she had executed sale-deed professing to be Bhumidhar of the land in question of Khata No. 18 and as such the sale-deed could not be treated to be invalid although no order for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad was passed in her favour.
(3.) I am unable to agree with this contention. In Ramdeo v. Dy. Director of Consolidation U.P, Lucknow, 1968 RevDec 99 : (AIR 1968 All 262) Hon'ble Justice Satish Chandra (as he then was) held (at pp. 264, 65): "Where the transaction for the acquisition of the certificate was not completed in deceased Sirdar's lifetime and in his favour, on the date of his death he remained as Sirdar. Since he did not receive the certificate, he did not acquire the Bhumidhari interest in the holding at all. Retrospective operation of the certificate will not confer any interest in the holding on deceased Sirdar but on the person in whose favour the certificate was granted. The effect of the Bhumidhari certificate can commence only after the formality of its grant has been completed. The fact of its completion cannot be influenced by the retrospectivity of its operation after it has been issued. In the instant case the Sirdar deposited ten times of the rent and made an application for the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad on a certain date, and on the same date executed a deed of sale of a share in the Sirdari holding but died subsequently and the Bhumidhari Sanad was in due course issued in the name of his son. The deceased Sirdar did not become a Bhumidhar and hence did not obtain a transferable interest in the holding and the sale-deed executed by him could not validly vest any title in the transferee.";