JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for a declaration that he was the sirdar of an area 3.29 acres of plot No. 497. He alleged that the entire plot 497 having an area 5.29 acres, was demised to the petitioner on lease by the then zamindar, on 20th July, 1935. The petitioner had been in possession over the entire area of this plot and had been paying rent for it. But in the revenue records his name was entered only over an area of 2 acres. The rest of the area was entered as banjar. The suit was contested by the Gaon Samaj as well as the State Government. The trial court decreed the suit. It found that the petitioner was the tenant of the entire plot and hence its sirdar. The Gaon Samaj went up in appeal and succeeded. The Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, held that the whole plot was undoubtedly leased out to the plaintiff, and that he was paying rent for it; but the plaintiff was in cultivatory possession over an area 2 acres only and not over the rest of the area of 3.29 acres. Since he did not actually enter into possession over this area which was lying banjar, it vested it-4 the Gaon Samaj and plaintiff lost his title over it. On this finding the suit was dismissed. This finding has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue in second appeal. Aggrieved the plaintiff has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2 It has been found that the whole plot No. 497 was let out to the plaintiff under one engagement. It constituted his holding. There is no finding that the area in dispute, namely, 3.29 acres of this plot was at any time and in any manner taken out of the plaintiff's holding. In the eye of law it continued to be a part of the plaintiff's holding. The fact that he did not cultivate it and thus could not be regarded as having been in cultivatory possession, by itself will not take this area out of the holding of the plaintiff. There is no finding nor was there any issue on the point, that the Gaon Samaj actually dispossessed the plaintiff at any time. The fact that he did not cultivate it and thus could not be regarded as having been in cultivatory possession, by itself will not take this area out of the holding of the plaintiff. There is no finding nor was there any issue on the point, that the Gaon Samaj actually dispossessed the plaintiff at any time. That does not appear to have been the case of the Gaon Samaj either, in its pleadings. 3. It has not been found by any of the courts below that the plaintiff's interest in the plot extinguished in any manner. Section 45 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and Section 190 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act deal with extinction of interest of the tenant and the sirdar. There is no finding that the case fell within any of the clauses of these sections. For the respondents, learned counsel urged that the case will fall in clause (1) which says that where the tenant has been deprived of possession and his right to recover possession is barred by limitation, his interest shall be extinguished. This presupposes that some person ousts the tenant. As noticed earlier, there was no such plea nor any issue nor any finding. Merely because the plaintiff did not cultivate the plot or exercise any overt act of possession over the area in dispute, it cannot be presumed that he was deprived of possession by someone else. 4. Vesting of land in Gaon Sabha has been dealt with by Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. There, under clause (I) of Sub-Sec. (1) lands, whether cultivable or otherwise, "except lands for the time being comprised in any holding or grove" can vest in the Gaon Sabha. Obviously lands which are comprised in any holding cannot possibly vest in the Gaon Sabha. The area in dispute constituted a part of the plaintiff's holding. In the absence of any finding that the disputed area ceased to be a part of plaintiff's holding, it could not vest in the Gaon Sabha. Merely because it was recorded as banjar in the revenue papers will not mean that it ceased to be a part of plaintiff's holding. In the absence of any finding that the disputed area ceased to be a part of plaintiff's holding, it could not vest in the Gaon Sabha. Merely because it was recorded as banjar in the revenue papers will not mean that it ceased to be a part of plaintiff's holding. In Sandeo Pandey v. The State of U.P., 1966 RD 131 a Learned Judge of this Court held that tenants who dig tanks or ponds in their tenancy holding, do not cease to be tenants of the holding or part thereof which are covered by the tank or pond. Similarly, the mere fact that a tenant does not cultivate any part of his holding or leaves it uncultivated for a number of years, will not mean that that part ceases to be a portion of his holding or that he ceases to be its tenant. In my opinion, the Additional Com-missioner and the Board of Revenue were in error in reversing the decree of the trial Court. 5. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgments of the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue are set aside and that of the Judicial Officer dated 16-5-1964 is restored with costs throughout.