R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) PHULLOO , the father of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was sirdar of the land in dispute. On 10 -3 -1953 hp executed a sale deed in favour of Ram Swarup, father of the Petitioner. Phulloo deposited ten times of the annual rent in the Government Treasury. A Bhumidhari Sanad was issued to him Under Section 137 of the UP ZA and LR Act and he became a Bhumidhar with effect from, 10 -3 -1953. It is said that therefore he was entitled to transfer the land. Shortly after the execution of the sale deed Ram Swarup died and the Petitioners applied for mutation in their favour. Meanwhile proceedings for consolidation of holdings commenced in the village and objections Under Section 9 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act were filed by the Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 contending that fraud had been practised upon Phulloo. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection and directed that the names of the Petitioners be recorded as Bhumidhars. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dismissed an appeal filed by the Respondents. A second appeal was, however, allowed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation. Thereafter a revision application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed by the Joint Director of Consolidation. The Petitioners pray for certiorari against the orders of the Assistant Director and the Joint Director.
(2.) THE question which arises in this case is whether on the date when the sale deed was executed namely, 10 -3 -1953, Phulloo can be said to have acquired Bhumidhari rights. That question depends upon whether he deposited ten times of the land revenue contemplated by Section 134 on 10 -3 -1953. Although Phulloo paid over the money into the Government Treasury on 10 -3 -1953, it was entered into the account on the next day only. The Assistant Director has taken the view that the date of deposit must be taken as 11 -3 -1953, when the money was credited in the Treasury. In, my opinion, the approach adopted by the Assistant Director is patently erroneous. Section 134(1) provides: 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 of 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: ... ... ... Section 135 provides that the application referred to in Section 134 shall be accompanied where the Amount is paid in cash, by a treasury chalan and in any other case, by such document or evidence as may be prescribed. Section 136 provides for a case where the amount to be deposited is paid by a sirdar who was on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting a hereditary tenant of the holding. Section 137 declares that 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. Upon the grant of the certificate a sirdar shall from the date on which the amount referred to in Section 134(1) has been deposited become and be deemed to be a bhumidhar of the holding. It is clear that in order to obtain the grant of the declaration contemplated by Section 137 it is necessary that the sirdar should pay or offer to pay to the credit of the State Government an amount equal to ten times of the land revenue. As soon as the sirdar has paid the money to the credit of the State Government he is entitled, subject to making a proper application, to the grant of a certificate. Now, it may be that although the payment is made on one day the Treasury official concerned with the matter may not make the necessary entry in the records until the next day or later. The entry in the records has not been made the decisive test for determining the date on which the payment has been made. If the payment is made on one date, it is a payment made on that date notwithstanding that the entries in the records show that it has been made on any other date. The grant of the certificate depends upon the payment made by the sirdar and not upon the entry in the Treasury records. It is the date on which the payment is made by the sirdar that is relevant. Throughout the several provisions mentioned above the Legislature has spoken of a deposit being made by the sirdar. It has not made the entry recorded in the records of the Treasury the decisive event. Phulloo made the deposit on 10 -3 -1953, when he paid the money to the credit of the State Government. The deposit was not made on 11 -3 -1953 when the entry of the deposit was recorded. Inasmuch as the deposit was made by Phulloo on 10 -3 -1953, it must be held that Phulloo was competent to execute the sale deed in favour of Ram Swarup. In this view of the matter the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation must be quashed. The petition is allowed. The order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation is quashed. As no one appears on behalf of the Respondents there is no order as to costs.;