JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made under Section 333-A by the Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide his order dated 14.10.1987. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that the revisionist filed a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 in the court of Sub-divisional Officer that he is sirdar of suit plot No. 251/2 area 2.07 acre. He also pleaded that it is his old tenancy and his possession is well before the enforcement of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the village. The trial court decreed the suit but declared that he is non-transferable bhumidhar. Against this finding the revisionist preferred a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has referred the revision to be accepted with the recommendation that the revisionist had acquired transferable right and he is non-transactor bhumidhar. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. I have carefully gone through the record. No one has objected against the recommendation. 4. In Khatauni extract 1362 Fasli there is endorsement of an order under C.L.R.D. Scheme that the revisionist should be recorded as Sirdar, hence revisionist was a sirdar in 1362 Fasli. After the amendment of the provision of the tenure-holder he has acquired bhumidhari rights and his name should be recorded bhumidhar with transferable right. The reference made by the learned Commissioner is perfectly valid and in accordance with law, therefore, it is accepted. Let the trial court's decree and judgment be modified and the revisionist be declared transferable bhumidhar of the suit plot.