JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - Pyare Raja and Gulab Singh filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1986 passed by the Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, in Appeal No. 15/345 of 1985-86 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1984 and 13.9.1984 respectively passed by the S.D.O. Mahroni in a suit u/Sec. 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the plots No. 402, 403 and 404 total area 6.6.2 acres were khudkasht of the father of the plaintiffs. Till 1347-F, plot No. 403 area 4.81 acres was recorded as khudkasht but in 1359-F it was wrongly recorded as Banjar though the plaintiffs had been in continuous possession. In 1382-F the plaintiff was recorded in Class-4. Relying on 1973 R.D. 20, he argued that the plaintiffs possession is proved. His third contention is that the proceedings under Rule 115-C and Section 122-B of the Act were initiated but subsequently dropped. The learned D.G.C. (R.) has contended that no substantial question of law is involved in this case and both the courts below have given concurrent findings. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the records. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial court framed 4 issues and dismissed the suit on 10.3.84. The learned trial court has found that plot Nos. 402 and 403 were never recorded in the name of the plaintiffs father. As regards plot No. 403, admittedly it was recorded in the name of the plaintiffs' father in 1347-F. There is nothing on the record to show under whose orders the name of the recorded tenure holder was expunged. The learned trial court dismissed the suit in respect of this plot also on the ground that even Lekhpal was competent to expunge the name. The learned Addl. Commissioner has concurred the findings of the learned trial court with the observations that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession. He has further observed that the land in dispute vested in the Gaon Sabha u/Sec. 117 (7)of the Act. 4. The learned Addl. Commissioner has concurred the findings of the learned trial court with the observations that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their possession. He has further observed that the land in dispute vested in the Gaon Sabha u/Sec. 117 (7)of the Act. 4. Section 117 (7) reads as follows:- "At any time after the publication of the notification mentioned in Section 4, the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare that as from the date to be specified (hereinafter in the Chapter called the specified date) - (i) ................ (ii) ................. (iii) ....................... (v) .............................. (v)....................... (vi) ......................... (vii) tanks, ponds, private ferries,water channels, pathways situate abadi sites: situate in a circle, which had vested in the State under this Act, shall vest in the Gaon Sabha established for the circle." Hon'ble S.N. Singh, J. of the Allahabad High Court has held in Shahdeo Pandey and another v. The State of U.P. 1966 R.D. 131, that '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....if there was already settlement with the plaintiffs the Gaon Sabha or the State could not interfere with whom the property is deemed to have been settled by virtue of Section 18 of the Act. Even though the entire village site vests in the Gaon Sabha in view of Section 117(7) of the Act still we find by virtue of Section 9 of the Act sites of the wells or the buildings are deemed to have been settled with the owners thereof ... The scheme of the Act as well as various sections would show that the entire estate at the first instance vested in the State but thereafter there was resettling with various other persons and it appears that it was considered proper to allow the intermediaries to retain their possession over their shir khudkasht and plots that were intermediary's 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. Z.A. and L.R. Act, all rights, title and interest of all interest of all intermediaries vested in the State u/Sec. 6 of the Act. These properties which were given to the intermediaries were not taken away by virtue of any of the sections mentioned in the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, all rights, title and interest of all interest of all intermediaries vested in the State u/Sec. 6 of the Act. But an intermediary, leasee, tenant, grantee or grove holder, as the case may be, is entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar u/Sec. 18 (1) of the Act. Hon'ble S.N. Singh, J. has held in the case referred to above that 'in order to be a khudkasht holder under Section 180 (2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act exclusive possession is necessary and not self cultivation. But the khudkasht mature of the land when once it has become a khudkasht land ceases when hereditary rights accrue in such land. Shiror khudkasht plots do not cease to be such by excavation a tank in them.' 5. It has been further held that if a plot of land which assumed the character of khudkasht land was in possessing of the intermediary although it has 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. In the case under reference, the land in dispute has assumed the character, of a tank and bhita. In the instant case, the land in dispute has been shown as bandhi in the khatauni of 1359-F. The facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case under reference where the nature of the land was changed. It was in the shape of a tank and bhita. In the instant case, the land was in the shape of bandhi - a temporary source of irrigation. Notwithstanding this change in the character of the land in dispute, the recorded tenure holder will not loose his rights. This view is supported by the ruling given by the Hon'ble Satish Chandra, J. of the Allahabad High Court, reported in Darshan Singh v. Board of Revenue 1967 R.D. 426 wherein His Lordship has held the merely because a portion of the area of the holding was recorded as Banjar in the revenue papers will not mean that it ceased to be a part of the holding. The learned court below has failed to properly interpret the decisions cited above. The appellants can justifiably lay his claim on plot No. 403 because his ancestor were recorded tenant over this plot before the abolition of the Zamindari. 6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed in respect of the plot No. 403 and the verdict given about this plot is set aside. The findings in respect of the remaining plots in dispute are upheld.