JUDGMENT S.N. Singh, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for injunction in respect of plot Nos. 77, 78 and 79 total area 750 links situate in village Nasiruddinpur, Pargana Mohamme-dabad, district Azamgarh. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plots in dispute were the khudkasht plots of one Kuber Singh which, through a sale deed dated 29th May 1911 and an exchange deed dated 6th March 1943 came to the plaintiffs, and he became the khudkasht-holder of these plots. In these khudkasht plots the plaintiffs dug a Bawali and over the Bhita of that Bawali they planted trees in large numbers with the result that the Bhita part of the land became its grove of the plaintiffs. It is said that after the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act they became bhumidhars of the grove but the Lekhpal had recorded the land in suit as Bhita and Talab and had entered the name of the plaintiffs in the remarks column of Khasra 1359F. It is further stated that by virtue of an order dated 26th November 1958 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer the land had been entered as the property of the Gram Samaj which had begun interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs; hence the suit after serving the requisite notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. 3. Defendant No. 2 the Gram Samaj admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. Defendant No. 1, U.P. State contested the claim on the ground that plot No. 77 area 429 links was the Bhita of plot Nos. 78 and 79 which was a pond on the spot. It was said that it was in the same condition at the date of vesting hence it vested in the Gram Samaj. It was further said that the trees were self grown and scattered hence the plots in suit became the property of the Gram Samaj and the plaintiffs did not become the bhumidhars thereof. Pleas based on limitation and estoppel and about the invalidity of the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. were also taken. 4. Both the courts accepted the defence case that the property in suit vested in the Gram Samaj and dismissed the suit. Other legal pleas were decided against the defendants. 5. Pleas based on limitation and estoppel and about the invalidity of the notice under Sec. 80, C. P. C. were also taken. 4. Both the courts accepted the defence case that the property in suit vested in the Gram Samaj and dismissed the suit. Other legal pleas were decided against the defendants. 5. The plaintiffs have come up in appeal to this Court and have challenged the decisions of the two courts below. They contend that they have become bhumidhars of the plots in suit on the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and the defendants have no right to interfere with their possession. 6. The admitted case as found by the lower appellate court is that the plots in suit were the khudkasht plots of the plaintiffs. In these khudkasht plots the plaintiffs had dug a tank and this tank was surrounded by Bhita on all sides and on the Bhita the plaintiffs who were the intermediaries had planted the trees in the year 1943. A commission was issued in this case and the report of the Commissioner which is on the record shows that the Commissioner found that the trees on the Bhita were in such numbers that it was in the shape of a grove. The area of the Bhita is 429 links a little less than half an acre over which there were 190 trees. 7. On this admitted and proved case of the parties and the finding of the lower appellate court the question for the decision of this Court is as to whether the plaintiffs became bhumidhars of the plots in suit on the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or not. On the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by virtue of Sec. 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all rights, title and interests of all the intermediaries vested in the State. The relevant portion of Sec. 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is as follows:- 6. On the passing of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act by virtue of Sec. 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act all rights, title and interests of all the intermediaries vested in the State. The relevant portion of Sec. 6 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act is as follows:- 6. When the notification under Sec. 4 has been published in the Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or document or in any other law for the time being in force and say as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter set forth shall, from the beginning of the date of vesting, ensue in the area to which the notification relates, namely- (a) all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries- (i) in every estate in such area including land (cultivable or barren), grove-land, forests whether within or outside village boundaries, trees (other than trees in village abadi, holding or grove), fisheries, tanks, ponds, water-channels, ferries pathways, abadi sites, hats, bazars and melas (other than hats, bazars and melas held upon land to which clauses (a) to (c) of sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 18 apply). shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. 8. The important thing in this sub section is that groves were excluded from being vested in the State. After the vesting of everything of the in termediaries there was re-settlement with them in respect of certain plots of theirs. In this connection it is re levant to note Sec. 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Re forms Act. Sec. 18(1) (a) reads as follows:- 18. (1) Subject to the provisions of Secs. 10, 15, 16 and 17 all lands- (a) in possession of or held or deemed to be held by an into me diary as sir, khudkasht or an intermediary's grove. (b) . . . . . . (c) . . . . . . (d) . . . . . . (e) . . . . . . On the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary, lessee tenant, grantee or grove-holder as the case may be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof. 9. (e) . . . . . . On the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary, lessee tenant, grantee or grove-holder as the case may be, who shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar thereof. 9. Having given this Sec. 18 we have to see whether the case of the plaintiffs is covered by this section or not. The tank and the Bhita are on the khudkasht land of the intermediary and the trees which are on the Bhita are in such numbers as preclude cultivation and the Bhita in the nature of a grove land. It admitted that this grove land was held by the intermediary on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting as such in view of Sec. 3, sub-Cl. (13) it will be covered by the definition of "intermediarys grove." Thus we find that on the Khudkasht plots of the intermediary there was a tank and a portion of it, i.e. Bhita part was in the shape of grove. So far as the portion which is in the shape of a grove is concerned there does not appear to be any difficulty in holding that of this portion of the plot the plaintiffs became the bhumidhars, for on the findings of the two courts below and the report of the Commissioner it is clear that the portion which is shown as Bhita was the grove land held by the intermediary as his grove and clearly comes within the purview of Sec. 18(1) (a) of the Act. 10. It has been argued on behalf of the State that so far as the tank is concerned though it is in the khudkasht land but since it had ceased to be khudkasht by the date immediately preceding the date of vesting the plaintiffs could not be held to be the bhumidhars of that plot. In my opinion if a plot of land which assumed the character of khudkasht land and was in possession of the intermediary although it had not been cultivated by the intermediary immediately before the date of vesting still it will be deemed to be the khudkasht land of the intermediary for the purposes of section 18 of the Act. 11. In my opinion if a plot of land which assumed the character of khudkasht land and was in possession of the intermediary although it had not been cultivated by the intermediary immediately before the date of vesting still it will be deemed to be the khudkasht land of the intermediary for the purposes of section 18 of the Act. 11. "Khudkasht" means land other than sir cultivated by a landlord, an under proprietor or a permanent tenure-holder as such either himself or by servants, or by hired labour. 12. Khudkasht lands were of different types. Khudkasht land which were continuously in possession of the intermediary for 12 years and assumed the character of sir; khudkasht land in the exclusive possession of an intermediary of which he became the khudkasht-holder by virtue of Sec. 180(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act; Khudkasht land of the intermediary other than the above two kinds. 13. Sec. 18 (1) (a) of the Act deals with three types of land sir, khudkasht and intermediaries grove. When a person ceased to be a "sir holder" of a plot is not difficult to answer for there are statutory provisions in the various tenancy Acts showing as to when and how the sir right would be extinguished. It is also not difficult to answer as to when a land ceased to be grove land of an intermediary for the definition of grove land itself shows that in order to constitute grove land there must be trees in sufficient numbers as to preclude the land from being cultivated or being used primarily for any other purpose. When we have to answer as to when a khudkasht holders right comes to an end it presents some difficulty for neither there is a statutory provision nor the definition is so clear as to afford a ready answer. Once a person has acquired Khudkasht-holders right continuous self cultivation in successive years does not appear to be sine-qua non for retaining that right. Vide Sec. 30 sub-Cl. (7) of the U.P. Tenancy Act which is as follows:- 30. Notwithstanding anything in Sec. 29, hereditary rights shall not accrue in- (1)................................... (2) .................................. (3 ).................................. (4) .................................. (5 ).................................. (6 ).................................. (7) The Khudkasht of a landlord, permanent tenure holder or under proprietor, the local rate payable by whom does not exceed Rs. Vide Sec. 30 sub-Cl. (7) of the U.P. Tenancy Act which is as follows:- 30. Notwithstanding anything in Sec. 29, hereditary rights shall not accrue in- (1)................................... (2) .................................. (3 ).................................. (4) .................................. (5 ).................................. (6 ).................................. (7) The Khudkasht of a landlord, permanent tenure holder or under proprietor, the local rate payable by whom does not exceed Rs. 25/-per annum, if such Khudkasht is let out when such landlord, permanent tenure-holder or under proprietor is in the military, naval or air set vice of the Crown or within three months before the entry in, or three months after the cessation of, such service: Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not apply- (a) it, at the time such Khudkasht is let out, there are several co-sharers in such Khudkasht and not all of them are in the service of the Crown as aforesaid, unless the co sharers who are not in such service, belong to one or more of the classes, namely females, minors, lunatics, idiots or persons incapable of cultivation by reason of blindness or physical infirmity; and (b) beyond the thirtieth day of June next following the expiry of two years after the cessation of such service of the landlord, permanent tenure-holder or under proprietor, as the case may be. 14. This shows that the Khudkasht land will retain its Khudkasht character even though let out in certain circumstances. In order to be a Khudkasht holder under Sec. 180(2), U.P. Tenancy Act exclusive possession is necessary and not self-cultivation. In my opinion Khudkasht nature of the land when once it has become a Khudkasht land ceases when hereditary rights accrue in such land. Sir or Khudkasht plots do not cease to be such by excavating a tank in them. Similarly tenants who dig tanks or ponds in their tenancy holding do not cease to be such tenants of the holding or part thereof which are covered by the tank or pond. This being my view about the Khudkasht land the plaintiffs became bhumidhars of the plots in suit in spite of the fact that a portion of it is intermediarys grove and over another portion there is a tank. 15. This being my view about the Khudkasht land the plaintiffs became bhumidhars of the plots in suit in spite of the fact that a portion of it is intermediarys grove and over another portion there is a tank. 15. It has been argued before me that by virtue of Sec. 117 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act the plots in suit vested in the Gram Samaj and reliance is placed on Sec. 117, sub-Cl. (7). 16. Sec. 117 (7) reads as follows:- "At any time after the publication of the notification mentioned in Sec. 1, the State Government may, by notification, in the Gazette-declares that, as from the date to be specified (hereinafter in this chapter called the specified date)- (i).................... (ii)................... (iii) ................. (iv).................. (v)................... (vi )................. (vii) tanks, ponds, private ferries, water channels, pathway and abadi sites, situate in a circle, which has vested in the State under this Act, shall vest in the Gaon Samaj established for the circle: 17. It is true that the property that vested in the State was deemed to have vested in the Gaon Sabha after the relevant notification, but that would not affect the rights of the plaintiffs with whom there was a settlement by the State. The Gaon Sabha gets the same position as that of the State. If there was already settlement with the plaintiffs the Gaon Sabha or the State could not interfere with the possession of the bhumidhar with whom the property is deemed to have been settled by virtue of Sec. 18 of the Act. Even though the entire village site vests in the Gaon Sabha in view of Sec. 117 (7) of the Act still we find by virtue of Sec. 9 of the Act sites of the wells or the buildings are deemed to have been settled with the owners thereof. Similarly, all tanks vest in the Gaon Sabha as superior title holder whereas tenure-holders rights are there in some of those tanks with others. The scheme of the Act as well as the various sections would show that the entire estate at the first instance vested in the State but thereafter there was re-settling with various other persons and it appears that it was considered proper to allow the intermediaries to retain their possession over their sir, khudkasht, and plots that were intermediarys grove. The scheme of the Act as well as the various sections would show that the entire estate at the first instance vested in the State but thereafter there was re-settling with various other persons and it appears that it was considered proper to allow the intermediaries to retain their possession over their sir, khudkasht, and plots that were intermediarys grove. These properties which were given to the intermediaries were not taken away by virtue of any of the sections mentioned in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was only when we come to mention 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act that we find that when there was a land of public utility it was provided to be taken away by paying compensation to the intermediaries concerned if they had come in possession over the same after the year 1946. Except in cases which are covered by Sec. 212 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, plots that were settled with the bhumidhars were not taken away by any provision of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In my opinion on the facts found, by the courts below the plaintiffs did become bhumidhars of the plots in suit the Gram Samaj had very rightly not contested the case. This was a fit case in which injunction should have been issued restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the plots in suit. 18. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds, the decisions of both the courts are set aside and the plaintiff's suit is decreed as prayed with costs throughout. Appeal allowed.