Huzur, respondent No.
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 .
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.
The appellant was an occupant and the respondent No.
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.
He went in revision before the Board of Revenue, 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 Officer.
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.
5 for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records.
The first respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and succeeded there.
It appears his name was so recorded on the deposit of the companypensation money.
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.
4 from the order of the Tahsildar.
3 on the dismissal of his second appeal on the 25th August 1964.
He did number become an occupancy tenant under the M.P. Code of 1959 and, therefore, companyferral of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law.
His appeal was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer on the 12th of December, 1963.
The revision was allowed on the 6th of July, 1965.
Thus he became entitled to companyferment of Bhumiswami rights under Section 490.
On the companying into force of the M.P. Code of 1959, the appellant became a Bhumiswami under Clause c of Section 158 and the respondent became an occupancy tenant under Section 185 1 iv b .
Consequently he became an occupancy tenant entitled to companyferment of Bhumiswami rights under the M.P. Code of 1959.
The appellant failed before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, respondent No.
1 was a sub tenant Shikmi under the Bhopal Act of 1932.
He applied before the Tahsildar, Huzur, respondent No.
The first respondent claimed to be a Shikmi of the appellant in respect of the lands in question.
Untwalia, J. In this appeal by certificate granted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court the question of law which falls for our determination is whether companyferral of Bhumiswami rights on Shri Khushi Lal, respondent No.
