JUDGMENT S. K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a second appeal filed by Rajendra Prasad & others under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur confirming the decree dated 30-12-1976 passed by S. D. O. Naugarh in a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P.Z.A. & L. R. Act. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of U.P. Act I of 1951 contending that they had obtained a registered sale deed on 2-12-1958 and their names were also recorded in the papers but on account of the mistake of the lekhpal the land was recorded as Banjar even though plaintiffs were bhumidhars thereof. The plaintiff, therefore, ought to be declared bhumidhar of the land in dispute. 3. The suit was contested by the State on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. Some other pleas were also taken. The suit was ultimately dismissed mainly on the ground that it was barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act. The appeal was also dismissed, hence this second appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that no litigation arose between the parties during the consolidation operation, hence there was no question of the suit being barred by Section 49 of the U.P. C. H. Act. The record does indicate some element of truth in this argument, however the plaintiffs cannot succeed in this case on account of another reason. It is their evidence that they had purchased the land from Beni Madho Mishra who had become a sirdar by obtaining a lease of this land from L. M. C. He deposited 10 times of rent in Tahsil and become bumidhar and, thereafter, he executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs on 2-12-58. 5. In my opinion a person who obtained lease under Section 195 of the U.P. Z. A & L. R. Act was never entitled to obtain bhumidhari sanad even after depositing 10 times of rent. In this contest the provision of Section 134 of the Z. A. & L. R. Act as they stood at that time are relevant which reads as follows. In this contest the provision of Section 134 of the Z. A. & L. R. Act as they stood at that time are relevant which reads as follows. Section 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 10 times, and (b) where he offers to pay in instalments laid down in the rent payable or deemed to be payable on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting for the land of which he is the 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 : "Provided that the right to pay or offer to pay the amount aforementioned shall cease on the expiry of three months from the date to be notified by the State Government." The wordings of the aforesaid sub-section (1) clearly indicate that only such sirdar was entitled to deposit 10 times of rent who fell within the category of Clause (a) of Section 131 of the Z. A. Act. The pattedars admitted by L. M. C. did not fall within the category of Clause (a) of Section 131 of the said Act but they fell in Clause (b) hence they were not entitled to obtain bhumidhari sanad or to deposit 10 times rent as provided under Section 134 of the Z. A. & L. R. Act. 6. Consequently the transferor Beni Madho Singh who was a pattedar admitted by the L. M. C. was not a sirdar in Clause (a) of Section 131 of the Z. A. & L. R. Act and, therefore, he could not acquire bhumidhari rights on payment of 10 times of rent. Consequently even if he had paid 10 times of rent to the Treasury and was successful in obtaining a bhumidhari sanad he could not become a bhumidhar nor could he acquire bhumidhari rights with transferable rights. Consequently even if he had paid 10 times of rent to the Treasury and was successful in obtaining a bhumidhari sanad he could not become a bhumidhar nor could he acquire bhumidhari rights with transferable rights. He was, therefore, not entitled to transfer the land to any one by way of a sale deed and, therefore, even if he executed any such sale deed no rights could be passed on to the purchasers. In these circumstances the plaintiffs could not acquire bhumidhari rights by virtue of the sale executed in his favour by Beni Madho Singh and, therefore, they cannot be declared bhumidhars of the disputed land. Their suit and the appeal were, therefore, rightly dismissed. This appeal has also has no force and is accordingly dismissed.