JUDGMENT

O.P. Trivedi, J. - The dispute relates to plots Nos. 638 and 1298 on which in the basic year the name of Smt. Rukmin respondent No. 4 was entered as a bhumidhar. The appellants filed an objection under Section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act alleging that the disputed land was originally the sir of one Gur Prasad who had two sons Dhakan and Achhey Lal. Achhey Lal predeceased Gur Prasad and on the death of Gur Prasad sometime before January, 1937 his other son Dhakan was the sole heir and as such the sole tenure-holder of the land. In mutation proceedings started with respect to this property on the death of Gur Prasad Smt. Rukmin, widow of Achhey Lal, claimed a share in the property. there was a compromise on January 8, 1937 in those proceedings and it was agreed that Smt. Rukmin will have the two plots for her life time without any right of sale or mortgage. In the objection before the Consolidation authorities the contention of Dhakan was that these plots were given to Smt. Rukmin in lieu of maintenance and that under Section 11 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act she was only an asami and not a bhumidhar and the entry is incorrect. This contention was accepted by the Consolidation Officer who held that the plots in dispute were given to Smt. Rukmin for her maintenance only; that she was an asami and not a bhumidhar (vide Annexure 1) . Respondent Smt. Rukmin went up in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who dismissed the appeal maintaining the order of the Consolidation Officer (Annexure 2) . Then she went up in revision before the Director of Consolidation who allowed the revision holding that as the compromise arrived at between Dhakan and this lady in the mutation case did not mention that the plots in dispute were being given to her in lieu of maintenance she became a bhumidhar and the basic year entry of bhumidhari in her favour should continue (vide Annexure 3) . Aggrieved from this order of the Director of Consolidation Dhakan filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before this Court. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 21-8-1968 and therefore this special appeal.

2. It was urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that Smt. Rukmin never acquired bhumidhari rights and that she was only an asami. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of opinion that there is substance in this submission. Section 18 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reads as follows :

"(1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 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 an intermediary's grove-

(b) held as a grove by, or in the personal cultivation of a permanent lessee in Avadh,

(c) held by a fixed-rate tenant or a rent-free grantee as such, or

(d) held as such by-

(i) an occupancy tenant,

(ii) a hereditary tenant,

(iii) a tenant on patta assami or instamrari referred to in Section 17

possessing the right to transfer the holding by sale

(e) held by a grove-holder, on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary leasee, 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."

3. Srimati Rukmin never claimed to be the lessee, tenant, grantee or grove-holder of this land at any stage. She evidantly claims bhumidhar rights on the basis that when she acquired those rights under Section 18 she was an intermediary of the land. The question arises as to whether she could be regarded as an inter mediary and whether she was entitled to bhumidhari rights under Section 18 of the Act. 'Intermediary' has been defined under Section 3 (12) of the Act as follows;

"3 (12) 'intermediary' with reference to any estate means a proprietor,