The appellant failed before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, respondent No.
His case was that the appellant was the occupant of the lands within the meaning of the Bhopal Act of 1932.
The appellant filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional officers Huzur, respondent No.
The first respondent claimed to be a Shikmi of the appellant in respect of the lands in question.
From the Judgment and order dated 3 2 1967 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
The Board held that the appellant was number an occupant within the meaning of Section 2 15 of the Bhopal Act of 1932 and companysequently the first respondent was number a Shikmi under the said Act.
The appellant has preferred this appeal in this Court to challenge the decision of the High Court and for restoration of the order of the Board of Revenue.
The first respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and succeeded there.
the appellant became a Bhumiswami under clause c of section 158 and the respondent became an occupancy tenant under section 185 1 i iv b .Thus he became entitled to companyferment of Bhumiswami rights under Section 490.
His appeal was dismissed by the Sub Divisional officer on the 12th of December, 1963.
Conscquently he became an occupancy tenant entitled to companyferment of Bhumiswami rights under the M.P. Code of 1959.
4 from the order of the Tahsildar.
He went in revision before the Board of Revenue, respondent No.
3 on the dismissal of his second appeal on the 25th August 1996.
26 of 1966.
The revision was allowed on the 6th of July, 1965.
The appellant was an occupant and the respondent number 1 was a sub tenant Shikmi under the Bhopal Act of 1932.
Maulana Shamsuddin, the sole appellant in this appeal, was a Muafidar in the erstwhile State of Bhopal of the disputed lands in accordance with the Bhopal State Land Revenue Act, 1932 for brevity, the Bhopal Act of 1932 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Raghunath Singh and Manojswarup for Respondent No.1.
He did number become an occupancy tenant under the P. Code of 1959 and, therefore, companyferral of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law.
P. Lalit,B.P.Muheshwari and Suresh Sethi for Respondent No.
The Tahsildar by his order dated the 24th June, 1963 directed Khushi Lal to deposit companypensation equivalent to 15 times of the land revenue on the payment of which his name was to be recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holdings.
Petition No.
Harbans Singh for the Appellant.
5 for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records.
He applied before the Tahsildar, Huzur, respondent No.
2295 of 1968.
1 in respect of the lands in question in accordance with Section 190 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the M.P. Code of 1959, by the Revenue Authorities is companyrect and sustainable.
It appears his name was so recorded on the deposit of the companypensation money.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALTA, J. In this appeal by certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court the question of law which Lalls for our determination is whether companyferral of Bhumiswalnli rights on Shri Khushi Lal respondent No.
On the companying into force of the P. Code of 1959.
K. Gambhir for Respondents 3 5 and 7.
