ORDER R.L. Gulati, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution arises out of certain consolidation proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. The facts which are necessary for the decision of this petition are brief indeed. Ram Kumar and his brother Ram Swarup were the sirdars of the land in dispute. They deposited ten times of the rent and became the bhumidhars. The rent was deposited on 5-1-1960. On 6-1-1960, Ram Kumar transferred his share by a registered sale deed to the Petitioner Shiv Baran. It may be stated here that although the ten times rent was deposited on 5th January, the bhumidhari Sanad was issued to Ram Kumar and Ram Swaroop on 11-3-1960. On the basis of the sale deed the Petitioner Shiv Baran got the mutation made in his favour. 3. During the consolidation proceedings Ram Kumar, who is the Respondent No. 5, and Ram Pratap and Ram Kripal, sons of Ram Swaroop, who had in the meantime died, filed objections challenging the mutation in favour of the Petitioner on various grounds including the ground that the sale deed obtained by him from Ram Kumar was fraudulent. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) upheld the claim of the Petitioner, but the Dy. Director of Consolidation on second appeal decided against the Petitioner on the ground that Ram Kumar had no right to transfer his interest in the land in favour of the Petitioner on 6-1-1960 as the bhumidhari sanad was issued to him on 11-3-1960. According to him, Ram Kumar became a bhumidhar only on 11-3-1960 and as such he was incompetent to transfer his bhumidhari rights at an earlier date. The Petitioner then went up in revision u/s 48 of the Act. The Joint Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision by his order dated 27-4-1963, taking the view that the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction even though a second view might be possible. The present writ petition is directed against this order of the Joint Director of Consolidation and the earlier order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 12-10-1962. 4. Director of Consolidation did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction even though a second view might be possible. The present writ petition is directed against this order of the Joint Director of Consolidation and the earlier order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 12-10-1962. 4. The only point argued before me by the Learned Counsel for the parties is as to whether the sale deed in favour of the Petitioner is void because of the fact that Ram Kumar had not been granted the bhumidhari sanad on 6-1-1960, the date of the execution of the sale deed. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have cited before me certain decisions of this Court in support of their rival contentions, but before I examine those decisions, it would be appropriate to have a look, at the relevant legal provisions. The two sections of the UP ZA and LR Act which have a bearing on the question involved are Sections 134 and 137 as they stood at the material time. The two sections of the UP ZA and LR Act which have a bearing on the question involved are Sections 134 and 137 as they stood at the material time. The material portion of Section 134 is reproduced below: 134 (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-- (a) Where he pays in a lump sum; an amount equal to ten times, and (b) where he offers to pay in instalments laid down in Sub-section (2), an amount equal to 12 times, the rent payable or deemed to be payable on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting for the land of which he is a 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 or the first instalment, as the case may be, has been deposited, to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137 in respect of such land: (2) A sirdar who offers Under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) to pay in instalments shall pay the amount in four equal instalments, the first instalment to be paid with the application and the remaining three instalments to be paid every six months thereafter on or before the first day of July and first day of January each year: Provided that the Assistant Collector may on an application made in that behalf extend from time to time the date of payment of second or third instalment, but the total extension shall not in any case extend beyond the date on which the last instalment is payable. The material portion of Section 137 is as follows: (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. The material portion of Section 137 is as follows: (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 thereof: (a) become and be deemed to be a bhurnidhar 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, as shall be one-half of the amount of rent payable or deemed to be payable by him therefor on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting: A reading of the above quoted two sections together makes it clear that the grant of a bhumidhari Sanad to a sirdar consists of two stages. At the first stage the sirdar concerned has to deposit ten or twelve times the rent depending on whether the payment is made in one lump sum or in instalments and he has then to make an application for the grant of bhumidhari Sanad to the Assistant Collector. At the second stage his application has to be scrutinised by the Assistant Collector and after he is satisfied that the application is complete and correct in all respects and the Applicant is entitled to a declaration, the bhumidhari Sanad is granted to him. By virtue of Section 137(2) a sirdar becomes a bhumidhar from the date of the certificate or the Sanad. Obviously the bhumidhari rights remain inchoate at the first stage and ripen into the bhumidhari rights only on the grant of the certificate and with effect, of course, from the date of the certificate, even though u/s 134(1)(a) his right to obtain the declaration contained in the certificate extends back to the date of the payment made by him of the lump sum or the first instalment of the rent, as the case may be. 6. Section 152 of the UP ZA and LR Act permits the transfer of a bhumidhari right only and such a right, as I have stated above, does not accrue at any stage anterior to the grant of the bhumidhari certificate. 6. Section 152 of the UP ZA and LR Act permits the transfer of a bhumidhari right only and such a right, as I have stated above, does not accrue at any stage anterior to the grant of the bhumidhari certificate. The transfer of the bhumidhari right at an intermediate stage would, therefore, not be valid. However, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act comes into play in such a case and by reason of that section the bhumidhari right granted to the transferor subsequent to the transfer would ensure to the benefit of the transferee, and the transfer in his favour would become valid and effective. Consequently, the transfer in favour of the Petitioner made on 6-1-1960 would become valid and complete by reason of the operation of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act as the bhumidhari right conferred upon the transferor on 11-3-1960 would ensure to the benefit of the Petitioner. 7. Now the cases cited by the Learned Counsel for the parties may be looked into. These cases can be divided into two categories. In the first category would fall the cases where the transferor died after having made the transfer prior to the grant of the bhumidhari certificate, but after the deposit of the rent and in the second category would fall the cases where a transfer was made similarly after the deposit of the rent, but before the grant of the certificate and the transferor was alive on the date of the grant of the certificate. Tikam Singh v. Chattarpal Singh 1963 AWR 395 is a case falling in the first category. There also the sirdar transferred tie land in question by way of a gift under a registered gift deed executed after the deposit by him of ten times the rent, but before the grant of the bhumidhari certificate to him. He, however, died in the meantime. Hon'ble S.N. Dwivedi, J., who decided that case, held that as the transferor had not become the bhumidhar of the gifted plots on the date of the gift, the transfer was invalid. In the opinion of the learned Judge the subsequent grant of the bhumidhari Sanad could be of no avail as no posthumous certificate could be issued. Hon'ble S.N. Dwivedi, J., who decided that case, held that as the transferor had not become the bhumidhar of the gifted plots on the date of the gift, the transfer was invalid. In the opinion of the learned Judge the subsequent grant of the bhumidhari Sanad could be of no avail as no posthumous certificate could be issued. This case can be of no assistance for the decision of the case before me as here at the time of the grant of the bhumidhari certificate the transferor was alive and the bhumidhari certificate could not be said to be posthumous. Moreover, the effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act had not been considered in that case. The next case in the same category is the case of Ramdeo and Anr. v. The Dy. Director of Consolidation 1967 AWR 578 . This was also a case where a sirdar after having deposited the rent transferred his interest before the grant of the bhumidhari certificate, but in the meantime he himself died. Satish Chandra, J., who decided this case, also expressed the opinion that the Act did not contemplate the grant of a bhumidhari sanad to a person after his death and that before the grant of the certificate, he did not become a bhumidhar, but remained a sirdar throughout. He expressed the opinion that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act also did not help the transferee as that section embodied the rule of estoppel as well as the doctrine of equity which acts in personam and does not run with the estate. This case also, for the reasons stated above, is not applicable to the facts of the case before me. The cases falling in the second category may now be noticed. The first case falling in this category is Bankey Singh v. Ram Sabad Singh 1965 AWR 474 : 1965 UPRC 228. In this case a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble S.N. Singh, J.) relying upon the provisions of Section 134 of the UP ZA and LR Act held that on a grant of declaration of a bhumidhari u/s 137 of the UP ZA and LR Act the person getting such a declaration shall be deemed to be a bhumidhar from the date of the deposit of ten times the revenue. The learned Judge did not notice the conflict between Sections 134(1)(a) and 137(2) as was noticed by Tripathi, J. in Niau v. Kunwar Sen 1966 ALJ 135. However, this was a case where the transferor was alive on the date of the grant of bhumidhari certificate to him and it was held by the learned Judge that he would be deemed to have acquired bhumidhari rights from the date of the deposit of ten times the revenue and therefore any transfer made by him after the deposit of the rent would be valid. The next case in this category is Jagat Narain v. Laljee and Ors. 1964 AWR 646 : 1964 UPRC 296. The facts of this case are almost similar to the facts of the case before me. In this case Gangeshwar Pd., J. after comparing the provisions of Sections 134 and 137 expressed the view that the bhumidhari right inhered only when the certificate of bhumidhari was granted to a sirdar and not on any date between the date of the deposit of the rent and the date of the grant of the certificate. The learned Judge, however, examined the effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act and came to the conclusion that by reason of the provisions of that section of the Transfer of Property Act, the transferee's title would be perfected. Yet another case in this series is Niau v. Kunwar Sen (supra). As I have stated above, H.C.P. Tripathi, J. who decided this case, noticed the conflict between Sections 134(1)(a) and 137(2). According to Section 134(1)(a) a sirdar would be entitled to a declaration with effect from the date of the deposit of the whole rent or the first instalment thereof, while u/s 137(2), the bhumidhari right shall vest in the sirdar only with effect from the date of the bhumidhari certificate. The learned Judge, in order to harmonise the two provisions, preferred to interpret the phrase 'date thereof occurring in Section 137(2) to mean the date of deposit of the rent and not the date of the certificate of bhumidhari. The effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, however, was not noticed in that case. 8. The learned Judge, in order to harmonise the two provisions, preferred to interpret the phrase 'date thereof occurring in Section 137(2) to mean the date of deposit of the rent and not the date of the certificate of bhumidhari. The effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, however, was not noticed in that case. 8. With respect, I am not sure if Tripathi, J. was right in straining the language used in Section 137(2) in order to bring about harmony between the two provisions which seemed to be conflicting with each other. To my mind there is no such conflict between the two sections. Section 134(1) merely entitles a sirdar to a declaration envisaged by Section 137, but the actual grant of the bhumidhari rights takes place only when the bhumidhari certificate is granted. However, it is not necessary to express any final opinion on this aspect of the matter as whether one accepts the interpretation placed by Tripathi, J. or accepts the interpretation placed by Gangeshwar Pd., J., the result would be the same, if the effect of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is taken note of. In other case where a sirdar makes a transfer of his rights in the land after the deposit of the rent but before the grant of the bhumidhari certificate to him, the transferee would acquire the bhumidhari rights, if the transferor does not die in the meantime. 9. The result of the above discussion is that the sale in favour of the Petitioner became complete in all respects and he became a bhumidhar as a result of the sale in his favour notwithstanding that on the date of sale Ram Kumar had not received the bhumidhari certificate which was subsequently granted to him on 11-3-1960. 10. No other point having been argued before me, this writ petition must succeed and is accordingly allowed with costs. A writ will issue quashing the orders dated 27-4-1963 and 12-10-1962 passed respectively by the Joint Director of Consolidation and the Dy. Director of Consolidation.