JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.N. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated September, 18, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar, Musafirkhana, distt. Sultanpur in case No. 23 under Section 134, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionist Sobhnath submitted an application before the Tahsildar on October 15, 1969 for grant of Bhumidhari Sanad for his 6/10th share in a joint Sirdari holding. Rampal, Din Dayal, Gaya Prasad, Ram Kewal and Ganga Prasad who are also recorded co-tenure-holders in the same holding submitted an objection stating that the share of the applicant in the joint holding was ?th and not 6/10th. It was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that a regular suit under Section 229-B/176. U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act had been filed by Sobh Nath regarding the same land. In these circumstances, the learned Tahsildar held that till this suit was decided, it would not be judicially correct to order the grant of the Sanad. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has challenged the view taken by the learned Tahsildar and has argued that under the law the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad need not wait for the actual determination of the shares in a regular suit. There is, however, no force in this argument. The law requires that a Bhumidhari Sanad be granted to a person only after the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the applicant is the sole Sirdar or co-Sirdar to the specified extent in the holding. For this purpose, where there are a number of co-Sirdars in a joint holding. For this purpose, where there are a number of co-Sirdars in a joint holding, the law requires that notice be given to all the co-tenure-holders so that they may get the opportunity of raising objections to the share claimed by the applicant. The grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad confers rights of transfer on the tenure-holder. It would thus follow that if a Bhumidhari Sanad for a larger share is granted to a co-Sirdar, the grantee may transfer even the excess share in the holding, which really belongs to other co-tenure-holders. The grant of a Bhumidhari Sanad confers rights of transfer on the tenure-holder. It would thus follow that if a Bhumidhari Sanad for a larger share is granted to a co-Sirdar, the grantee may transfer even the excess share in the holding, which really belongs to other co-tenure-holders. The fact that a suit for declaration of rights and division of holding is sub-judice shows that the shares of the co-tenure-holders in this joint holding are in dispute. Thus, until the dispute is decided, the learned Tahsildar has rightly held that the Sanad cannot be granted. The learned Addl. Commissioner has wrongly held that the respective shares of the parties should be decided in proceedings under Section 134. The correct position is that the shares will be adjudicated in the suit under Sections 229-B/176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which is already pending.