JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J.- By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a relief that by issuing a Writ of ceitiorari the judgment and order dated 27-1-1976 passed by the Board of Revenue may be quashed. 2. The case arises in this way. The village where the plots were situate was brought under consolidation operation and during consolidation operation the respondent no. 1 obtained a sale deed dated 29-5-1968 from Smt. Ram Kali, the petitioner and after the close of consolidation operation, he sought the effect of the sale deed in revenue papers. The application of the respondent no. 1 was, however, contested by the petitioner, the vendor alleging that she did not execute the sale deed and that prior permission of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was not obtained before making the sale, hence the sale deed was illegal and cannot be given effect to in the revenue papers. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 7-9-1971 dismissed the application of the respondent no. 1 by recording a finding that the sale deed was hit by Section 168-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The Additional Commissioner also dismissed the revision of the respondent no. 1. Against that order the respondent no. 1 preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 27-1-1976. This is the order against which the present petition has been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sale deed dated 31.5 1968 was illegal inasmuch as no permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was obtained as contemplated by Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Learned Counsel for the respondent however, contended that the vendor, the petitioner has transferred the plots which were her bhumidhari holdings, hence the bar contemplated by Section 5 (l) (c) (ii) of the Act would not apply. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the view that the case is concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Lal Singh v. State of U.P., (1977 RD page 307). In that case reliance has been placed on AIR 1971, All page 87 and AIR, 1974, All page 106 (FB). 5. Having heard counsel for the parties I am of the view that the case is concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Lal Singh v. State of U.P., (1977 RD page 307). In that case reliance has been placed on AIR 1971, All page 87 and AIR, 1974, All page 106 (FB). The ratio decided of the case is that a tenure-holder may have bhumidhari and sirdari land, in that case each class of land would constitute separate holding and in case the entire bhumidhari holdings held by a tenure-holder is transferred, no permission of the Settlement Officer would be necessary as contemplated by Section 5 (1) (c) (ii) even though the land may be included in one or more chaks. In the instant case the entire bhumidhari holding of the petitioner was transferred in favour of the respondent no. 1 by the aforesaid sale deed. Hence there is no necessity of obtaining permission of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the sale deed in favour of the respondent no. 1 was valid and legal and must be given effect to it in revenue papers. 6. In view of the discussion made above, I am of the view that the petitioner lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, I make no order as to costs.