ORDER

Counsel for the appellant states that the office report dated July 16, 1996 has been complied with.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla made in M.F.A. No. 24/84 on May 5, 1984. The only question is : whether the appellant is a tenant in occupation of the land ? He claimed that he was entitled to compensation in respect of subject matter of acquisition as tenant. The reference Court and the High Court recorded as a fact that the appellant is not a tenant and, therefore, is not entitled to the share in the compensation as a tenant. The undisputed facts are that 14 canals 18 marlas of land belonged to the family consisting of Kishori Lal, Kewal Krishan and Koushalya, their sister, Kishori Lal and Koushalya sold their respective suitable shares. Kewal Krishan also sold his specified share to the appellant. It would appear that in the revenue records the name of the appellant has been entered ass a qualifying tenant by reason of sale when the land to an extent of land admeasuring one canal, 5 marlas; 2 canals, 3 marlas belonged to Vijay Kumar were acquireded by the Government. The appellant laid claim as a tenant in