ORDER Satish Chandra, J. - This petition arises out of consolidation proceedings. 2. In 1963 several bhumidhars entered into a transaction whereby they delivered possession of the plots of land to the Petitioner for purposes of digging earth and establishing a brick-kiln for a period of ten years. When proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act commenced the Petitioner applied for mutation of his name as a bhumidhar over the plots which were the subject matter of the transaction. The Consolidation Officer held that the Petitioner had become a bhumidhar u/s 154 read with Section 164 of the ZA and LR Act. He further found that the transferees had as a result of the transfer, not more than 12 1/2 acres of land with them. The Gaon Sabha who was also claiming title to these lands on the ground that by reason of the transaction the title of both the transferor and transferee had extinguished, went up in appeal. The appeals were dismissed and the findings were affirmed. Aggrieved some of the transferors alone went up in revision. The Deputy Director held that the transaction was not a sale. He seems to be of the opinion that the transaction was in the nature of a lease, but a kase of this kind was not permitted by the ZA and LR Act. The transaction being a transfer and being "in contravention of the provisions of the ZA and LR Act, was void and the interest of the transferor extinguished, presumably Under Clause (aa) of Section 189 of the ZA and LR Act. He consequently directed that the land which was the subject matter of the transaction would be entered in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved, the transferee has come to this Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that accepting the finding that the transaction in dispute was a lease, it would be not void. It is true that Section 156 by Clause (a) prohibits a lease for any period whatever of any land except in the cases provided for in Section 157. Section 157 permits lease by a disabled bhumidhar. Section 166 makes a transfer made in contravention of Ch. VIII to be void and u/s 189 Clause (aa) the interest of a bhumidhar when he transfers or lets out in contravention of the provisions of the Act, gets extinguished. Section 157 permits lease by a disabled bhumidhar. Section 166 makes a transfer made in contravention of Ch. VIII to be void and u/s 189 Clause (aa) the interest of a bhumidhar when he transfers or lets out in contravention of the provisions of the Act, gets extinguished. But in the scheme of these provisions the legislature in its wisdom put a snag in the shape of Section 165. Under it when a bhumidhar other than one referred to in Section 157, lets out his holding, the lessee becomes a sirdar, to the extent of 12 1/2 acres of land covered by the lease. In respect of the excess area, Sections 164 and 163 apply, i.e. to say, the transaction of lease is to be deemed to be a sale in respect of excess area. Here the transaction in all was of land less than 12 1/2 acres. Hence Under Clause (a) of Section 165, the lessee became a sirdar. 4. The operation of Sections 156, 166 and 189(aa) will have to be made harmonious with the scope of operation of Section 165. In the scheme of things, Section 165 is a proviso or an exception to the other three sections. In so far as a transfer is covered by Section 165, it will not be void u/s 166 or bring about an extinction of the transferor's interest Under Clause (aa) of Section 189. In this view the Petitioner was entitled to be recorded over the land covered by the lease as a sirdar. 5. The view taken by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer that the transaction was a sale within the meaning of Section 164 has not appealed to me. Section 164 applies to transactions of the nature of mortgage or hypothecation where possession of property is delivered in order to secure payment of any money or loan or the incurrence of any liability. Here in the present case the possession were transferred not in order to secure the repayment of any money which the transferors obtained in the first instance for the transaction. They were not liable to repay any thing on expiry of the period for which the possession was transferred. The transaction was either an outright sale, or, as has been construed, it was a lease properly so called. Section 164 hence was not applicable to the transaction between the parties. 6. They were not liable to repay any thing on expiry of the period for which the possession was transferred. The transaction was either an outright sale, or, as has been construed, it was a lease properly so called. Section 164 hence was not applicable to the transaction between the parties. 6. The petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that the Petitioner would be recorded over the plots in dispute as a sirdair. Under the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.