JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Sachan and learned standing counsel for the State. This is a writ petition arising out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the U.P.Z.L. & L.R. Act’) on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon Gaon Sabha land. The stand of the State is that the land of plot No. 93 was recorded as a pond over which the petitioner has encroached upon and has constructed his house. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that he is in possession over plot No. 161 which was recorded as Abadi and not a pond and that he was in a permissive possession over the said land from the then Zamindar even from prior to abolition of Zamindari. The evidence which was led on behalf of the petitioner also was believed by the revising authority. This fact is being stated as it is on record. 3. The tehsildar dropped the proceedings against the petitioner. On a revision filed by the Gaon Sabha the order has been reversed on the ground that the petitioner is in adverse possession even if it is correct that the land was that of the Zamindar. 4. The issue is if the land was in the shape of an Abadi then the Zamindar, prior to abolition of Zamindari, who was the owner of every inch of land, had authority to allow any of his tenants or villagers to raise constructions on such land. The petitioner’s consistent case is that he and his ancestorsýÿ had obtained the said land and the house was constructed thereon and is existing there prior to the abolition of the zamindari. 5. The revisional authority, in the opinion of the Court, has completely overlooked the provisions of Section 9 of the U.P.Z.L. & L.R. Act which provides that in case an Abadi had been settled prior to abolition of Zamindari in favour of either the intermediary or the tenant then the constructions stand thereon together with the Abadi will be deemed to be settled with the intermediary or the tenant as the case may be. In the instant case the revisional authority itself has accepted and admitted that the land belonged to the then Zemindar. 6. In the instant case the revisional authority itself has accepted and admitted that the land belonged to the then Zemindar. 6. The only question that remains to be seen is whether the land was Abadi or a pond as alleged by the respondent state. The evidence which was brought on record including the statement of Lekhpal does not indicate any clarity with regard to the location of the disputed land and it cannot, therefore, be concluded that the constructions are situated over a land which is recorded as a pond. It is for this reason that while granting an interim order on 19.12.1996 this Court had categorically taken notice of this fact. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of the Court, neither the revisional authority nor any other authority has been able to successfully conclude that the land over which the petitioner has raised his construction is recorded as a pond or was recorded as a pond prior to abolition of Zamindari when the said constructions are said to have been raised. It also needs to be clarified that a hereditary tenancy could not be created under the provisions of Section 20 of the U.P. Tenancy Act over public utility land before abolition of Zemandari. Nonetheless there was no bar or prohibition on a Zamindar to have leased out any form of land for any other purpose. The reason was simple that the zamindar was the owner or every inch of land and he could have leased out even a pond. A heriditary right could not have been in a tenant, but that did not take away the power of the Zemandari to settle the land. In the circumstances where the evidence is that the petitioner’s construction and his possession is prior to the abolition of Zamindari then it was the duty of the revisional autholrity to have looked into the aforesaid provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act as well before arriving at any conclusion. Accordingly, the revisional order dated 13.9.1996 is quashed. It shall be open to the revisional authority to pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove. With the aforesaid directions the writ petition is allowed. ——————