JUDGMENT Kausal Kishore, M. - This second appeal was filed by Middan against the judgment and decree dated August 14, 1978 by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, allowing the appeal partly against the judgment and order of the learned trial court dated February 2, 1976. The trial court had held ? share of Middan and ? of Ismail and Fakira combined and had also ordered auction of the whole land under Section 178 as it was less than 3? acres in area. The Commissioner confirmed the shares but ordered that after separating the ? share of Ismail and Fakira, the remaining ? area should have been proceeded according to Section 178(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and remanded the same. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that after the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act No. VIII of 1977 the provision under Section 178(3) of the Act has become redundant as all the earst while Sirdars have become Bhumidhars, and there being no distinction between the ? and ? shares so far as the Bhumidhari rights are concerned, the whole land had to be treated alike and applying Section 178 (1) of the Act, had to be auctioned as held by the learned trial court. He further argued that if this view was not held, even then the remaining ? share of Middan could not be auctioned as after separation, it was not to be further divided. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that in view of the specific provision under Section 178(3) of the Act that these lands for the Act which Sanad Bhumidhari had been obtained before the Amendment Act of 1977, were to be separated from the holding, therefore, the learned Commissioner had rightly held the remaining ? share to be subject to application of Section 178(1) of the Act. 4. By reading Section 178(3) it becomes clear that even after the amendment in 1977, the land (share) for which Bhumidhari Sanad had been obtained before this amendment, had been specially treated differently and had to be separated. There is no question of this provision being redundant for it applies in spite of the particular share having become Bhumidhari before the amendment and the rest of the shares becoming Bhumidhari after the amendment. There is no question of this provision being redundant for it applies in spite of the particular share having become Bhumidhari before the amendment and the rest of the shares becoming Bhumidhari after the amendment. It is the later part of Section 178(3) which has not been properly interpreted by the learned Commissioner. This Section 178(3)(b) of the Act is reproduced below: "178(3). Where a co-tenure-holder has- (a) .......... (b) duly acquired Bhumidhari rights under Section 134 (as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Land Laws (Amendment Act, 1977) with respect only to a share in any holding; the court shall divide the holding by separating the share aforesaid, but in respect of the remainder of the holding, the provisions of sub-section (1), if applicable, shall be followed." It is important to note that the provisions of Section 178(1) of the Act relating to auction, apply only to the 'remainder' of the holding, if applicable. Application of Section 178(1) to the complete holding is, therefore, ruled out. In Section 178(1) of the Act, the words 'the court shall, instead of proceeding to divide the holding or holdings, direct the sale of same' are important. There is a clear rider on the provision for sale by auction, that the court should have the obligation to divide the holding and instead of this obligation has to direct sale of the same, and this condition is consistent with, and clarifies the significance of the words 'if applicable' occurring in Section 178(3). In the instant case, this provision when applied to 'the remainder', it is found that the need to divide has disappeared and the remainder is no longer to be divided. The condition for sale disappearing, the application of the provision is also no longer needed. In the result, the remainder has to remain intact as it is. 5. In the instant case, therefore, the need of sale does not arise and more separation of ? share completes the process of division of holding. The combined effect of Sections 178(1) and 178(3) of the Act is that nothing is to be done beyond separation of the pre-amendment Bhumidhari share if the post-amendment Bhumidhari share/shares are not to be divided, and since in the instant case, the remainder is not to be divided, the process is automatically completed, without need of any further action. 6. The combined effect of Sections 178(1) and 178(3) of the Act is that nothing is to be done beyond separation of the pre-amendment Bhumidhari share if the post-amendment Bhumidhari share/shares are not to be divided, and since in the instant case, the remainder is not to be divided, the process is automatically completed, without need of any further action. 6. In view of the above this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the first appellate court is set aside and the judgment and decree by the learned trial court is modified to the extent that the ? share of the defendants shall be separated, without necessitating any sale and two lots shall be prepared for the ? share of the defendants and the remainder.