(1) FACTS on record reveal that the plaintiff (who is represented by his legal representatives before us as respondents) was Khudkasht on the suit land, prior to the date on which he had entered into the agreement dated 29/7/1949 with the original defendant (whose legal representatives are on record before us as appellants). Under the agreement, the defendant was allowed to dig up earth from the suit land up to a depth of seven feet and to manufacture and store bricks on it. The period of agreement was seven years and it expired on 31/7/19566. In the meanwhile, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came into force w.e.f. 1/7/1952, The plaintiff filed a suit after the expiry of the period of agreement, to recover possession of the land from the defendant and also for compensation. The trial court decreed the suit so far as the possession of the land was concerned but disallowed the claim for compensation. The appeal court reversed the decree for possession on the ground that after coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition Act, in view of the provisions of its Section 4, the plaintiffs rights in the land vested in the State and he had no right left since he was not in possession of the suit land on the date of the vesting. The High court in second appeal reversed the decree of the District court holding that the plaintiffs right as Khudkasht was saved by virtue of Section 4 read with Section 18 of the Act and allowed the appeal and confirmed the decree of the trial court. It is this decision of the High court which is challenged before us by the defendant. (2) THE short question that falls for consideration before us is whether the plaintiff had lost his right as Khudkasht on coming into force of the Act. The relevant provisions of Section 4( 1 ) of the Act are as follows: "AS soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, the State government may, by notification, declare that. as from a date to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest. as from a date to be specified, all estates situate in Uttar Pradesh shall vest in the State and as from the beginning of the date so specified (hereinafter called the date of vesting), all such estates shall stand transferred to and vest. except as hereinafter provided, in the Stale from all encumbrances." (3) THE expression "except as hereinafter provided" makes it clear that in respect of the estates for which the exceptional provision is made in the Act after Section 4, the provisions of Section 4 will not apply. Section 18 of the Act makes provision for settlement of certain lands with intermediaries of cultivators as Bhumidhar. Sub-clause (a) of Section 18(1 mentions Khudkasht as one of the intermediaries on which the Bhumidhars rights are conferred. The relevant provision of Section 18(l)(a) reads as follows: "18. Settlement of certain lands with intermediaries of cultivators as Bhumidhar.(1 Subject to the provisions of S. 10, 15, 16 and 17 all lands- (a) in possession of or held or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, Khudkasht or in intermediarys grove.... * * * 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." It is clear from this provision, that even if the Khudkasht is not in actual possession of the land, but is deemed to be holding the land as such Khudkasht immediately preceding the date of the vesting, he will be entitled to take or retain the possession of the land as Bhumidhar. (4) SINCE the facts on record reveal that what was granted to the defendant by the plaintiff was only a right to dig the earth and to use the land for manufacturing bricks and storing them there, and even that right was to last only for a period of seven years; the right which was given to the defendant under the agreement in question was only that of a licensee and no other. The plaintiff had not parted with his interest in the land in favour of the defendant. The defendant was therefore, no more than a licensee. The plaintiff had not parted with his interest in the land in favour of the defendant. The defendant was therefore, no more than a licensee. The constructive possession of the land continued to be with the plaintiff and hence he was a Khudkasht deemed to be holding the land within the meaning of the said Section 18(l)(a). Hence he was entitled to take and retain possession of the said land as a Bhumidhar thereof. In view of this, we find that the decision of the High court is both valid and proper. (5) HENCE we uphold the impugned decision and dismiss the appeal with costs. In view of the fact that the appellant has been in possession of the land illegally since 1956, we quantify the cost at Rs. 5,000.00.