The appellant was a Muafidar of the disputed land, in the erstwhile Bhopal c State, while the first respondent cultivated the said lands as his tenant. When the M. P. L R. Code, 1959, came into force, the first respondent claimed that the appellant, as the occupant of the lands within the meaning of S. 2(15) of the BhopaJ State Revenue Act, 1932, had become a Bhumlswami u/s. 158(C) of the Code of 1959, while he himself had become an occupancy tenant u/s 185.( 1) (iv) (b) and as such, ·was entitled to ronferment of Bhumi· swami rights u/s 190 of the same Code. He applied to the Tahsildar, Huzur,. D for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records, and was directed to deposit compensation equivalent to 15 times of the land fevenue. Thereafter his name was recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holdings, on the deposit of the compensation money. The Mualidar appellant's appeal to the SubDivisiooal Officer, aga:inst the Tahsildar's order, and a second appeal to the Additional Co1nmissioner, were dismissed, but the Board of Revenue allowed his revision application, holding that he was not an occupant withiri the meanE ing of S. 2(15) of the Bhopal Act of 1932, and that consequently the first respondent waB neither a Shik.mi, nor did he become an occupancy tenant under the M.P. OXle of 1959, and therefore, conferment of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law. The first respondent filed a writ petition against the Revenue Board's Order, which was allowed by the lligh Court.
