ORDER R.C. Roy Poddar, Member This is a second appeal against the order of the Commissioner Raipur Division dated 29-3-1962 in Appeal No. 212-A/71 of 1961-62 under which he had only partly allowed the Appellant's first appeal against the order of the Additional Collector Raipur dated 15-11-1961 u/s 251(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 vesting certain tanks held by the Appellant, an ex-proprietor, in the State. The Additional Collector had ordered the vesting of five tanks, but the Commissioner found that four of these tanks were not burdened with any rights of the villagers for irrigation or Nistar and therefore in respect of these four tanks the Commissioner set aside the order of the Additional Collector. About the fifth tank (Khasra No. 303 area 3.79 acres) the Commissioner found that the right of the people to take drinking water from this tank was recorded, and therefore he ordered that this tank shall vest in the State. The main contention of the Appellant is that this tank had already vested in the State u/s 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act and therefore it could not vest in the State u/s 251(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. The Learned Counsel argued that after the tank had vested in the State u/s 4 of the Abolition Act it had been settled with the Appellant under Clause (f) of Section 5 and a rent also had been assessed on it, and therefore this tank must be held to lie outside the purview of Section 251 of the Code. The Learned Counsel cited the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Thakur Ram Ranjansing v. The State 1961 MPLJ 110 at page 40, in sup-port of his contention, and also some observation contained in the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Balkishan Nathani and Ors. 1963 MPLJ 641, which according to the Learned Counsel lent further support to his contention. On considering the arguments of the Learned Counsel and the decision on which he relies I find that this contention is not altogether without force and this appeal has to be allowed. The observation in the Supreme Court judgment of course does not help him much, but the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court certainly supports his case. On considering the arguments of the Learned Counsel and the decision on which he relies I find that this contention is not altogether without force and this appeal has to be allowed. The observation in the Supreme Court judgment of course does not help him much, but the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court certainly supports his case. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent-State that the tank in question had not vested in the State because of the words "save as otherwise provided in this Act" in Sub-section (1) of Section 4 cannot be taken as correct. These words are not meant to save from vesting the properties which are allowed to continue in possession of the proprietor or other person u/s 5 of the Act. Section 5 provides for the settlement of the properties enumerated in that section with the proprietor or any other person on the fulfillment of the conditions laid down in that section after the proprietary rights of such properties had vested in the State u/s 3 and the consequences enumerated in Section 4 had followed. If the property had not vested in the State then the proprietary right in it would have continued with the ex-proprietor and there would have been no question of settling it with him subsequently under Clause (f) of Section 5 or assessing it to a rent. The Commissioner's view on which the impugned order is based cannot therefore be supported. The appeal is therefore allowed and the order of the Commissioner is set aside. Final Result : Allowed