Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant/state challenging judgment and decree dated 21-12-1995 passed by First Additional District Judge, Bhind in Civil Appeal No. 9-A/92 whereby the Additional District Judge has reversed the judgment and decree dated 21-3-1986 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Mehgaon, District Bhind in Civil Suit No. 22-A/1984. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction alleging that he is owner of land bearing Survey Nos. 1068/1, 2069/1 and 2070/2 situated in Village Soudha, Tehsil Mehgaon, District Bhind. It is alleged that the said Village was a Zamindari Village and the plaintiff was in possession of the said land prior to coming into force of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act which came into force on 25th June, 1951. ( 3. ) IT is alleged that the plaintiff was the Ex-Zamindar of the said Village and the land in question was his Khudkasht land and, therefore, said land does not vest in the State Government after coming into force of M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act as per Section 4 (2) of the said Act. The suit is dismissed by two Courts below. ( 4. ) THIS appeal is admitted by this Court on 13-2-1997 on the following substantial question of law :- " whether the suit lands recorded as Pokhar in Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-15 be deemed to be Khudkasht lands and the plaintiffs have acquired Bhumiswami right over the suit lands ?" ( 5. ) FROM bare perusal of the khasra entries, Exs. P-14 and P-15, it is clear that it is mentioned in the revenue record that the land is Pokhar. The word "pokhar" is used in a local language for a small place where water is stored or lake for storing water. ( 6. ) COUNSEL for appellant submits that the land in question can not be therefore said to be a Khudkasht land. According to the Counsel for appellant Sub-clause (1) of Section4of the said Act says that all lands described in the said section vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date of coming into force of the Act. According to the Counsel for appellant Sub-clause (1) of Section4of the said Act says that all lands described in the said section vests in the State Government free from all encumbrances on the date of coming into force of the Act. Sub-clause (2) of Section 4 however, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of his Khudkasht land, so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting. Counsel for the appellant submits that the words so recorded appearing section (2) has much significance. The said words are used to show that the land must be recorded as Khudkasht land for falling in the exceptions carved out by Sub-section (2 ). In the present case according to the Counsel for the appellant, the land is not recorded as Khudkasht land and, therefore, it will not come in the ambit of Sub-section (2) and, therefore, will vest in the State Government. ( 7. ) THE arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant are attracted. However, if Section 5 of the said Act is considered the said argument appears to be without any merit. Section 5 provides that all private wells, trees, tank and buildings on occupied land with enclosures belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person will not vest in the State Government. Sub-clause (e) of the said section provides that all tank situate on occupied land and belonging to or held by the outgoing proprietor or any other person shall continue to belong to or be held by such proprietor or other person. Thus all tanks which are in possession of Zamindar shall continue to be his personal property. ( 8. ) IN the present case, the alleged Pokhar, i. e. , small lake falls in Sub-section (e) of Section 5 of the M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act. The said land is, as per the findings of the two Courts below, is in possession of the plaintiff, who was an Ex-Zamindar. Hence, the said land will continue to be in ownership of the present plaintiff. ( 9. ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.