As per case facts, the respondent filed a writ petition claiming that certain tanks built by him or his predecessor were on 'occupied land' and thus protected from vesting in ... the State under Section 5(c) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act. After an initial order was set aside by this Court, the case was remanded to the High Court to specifically determine if the tanks were on 'occupied land'. The question arose whether the tanks were on 'occupied land' as defined by the Abolition Act, particularly when parts of them were occupied by tenants, thereby affecting their exclusion from vesting in the State. Finally, the Supreme Court affirmed that 'occupied land' includes land held under various specified tenures, Khud-kasht, or homestead, in any combination. It clarified that a tank doesn't need to be exclusively on Khud-kasht land, and the mere fact that parts were occupied by tenants does not negate the protection of Section 5(c), concluding that the tanks were indeed saved from vesting.