JUDGMENT

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 conferral of Bhumiswami rights on Shri Khushi Lal, respondent No. 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 correct and sustainable.

2. 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). The first respondent claimed to be a Shikmi of the appellant in respect of the lands in question. His case was that the appellant was the occupant of the lands within the meaning of the Bhopal Act of 1932. On the coming 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 S. 185 (1) (iv) (b). Thus he became entitled to conferral of Bhumiswami rights under Section 190. He applied before the Tahsildar, Huzur, respondent No. 5 for mutation of his name as a Bhumiswami in the Revenue records. The Tahsildar by his order dated the 24th June, 1963 directed Khushi Lal to deposit compensation equivalent to 15 times of the land revenue on the payment of which he was to be recorded as a Bhumiswami of the holdings. It appears he was so recorded on the deposit of the compensation money. The appellant filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Huzur, respondent No. 4 from the order of the Tahsildar. His appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the 12th of December, 1963. The appellant failed before the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal, respondent No. 3 on the dismissal of his second appeal on the 25th August, 1964. He went in revision before the Board of Revenue, (respondent No. 2). The revision was allowed on the 6th of July, 1965. The Board held that the appellant was not an occupant within the meaning of S. 2 (15) of the Bhopal Act of 1932 and consequently the first respondent was not a Shikmi under the said Act. He did not become an occupancy tenant under the M. P. Code of 1959 and, therefore, conferral of Bhumiswami rights on him was erroneous in law. The first respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court and succeeded there. The High Court held that the Board was not right in its view of the law. The appellant was an occupant and the respondent No. 1 was a sub-tenant (Shikmi) under the Bhopal Act of 1932. Consequently he became an occupancy tenant entitled to conferral of Bhumiswami rights under the M. P. Code of 1959. 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.

3. Mr. Harbans Singh, appearing for the appellant, advanced a very fair and able argument to advocate his cause. He could not and did not dispute that if the appellant was an occupant, the first respondent was a Shikmi under the Bhopal Act of 1932 and if that be so then the order of the High Court is unassailable. But he vehemently contended that the appellant was not an occupant. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted his argument. Prima facie the argument, as presented, for the appellant appeared to have substance and force but on a close scrutiny we had no difficulty in rejecting it.

4. Section 2 of the Bhopal Act of 1932 is the definition section and as usual at the outset it uses the phrase "In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context". Sub-sec. (5) defines Alienated land to mean "land in respect of which, pursuant to a grant made by His Highness the Ruler, Government has, in whole or in part, assigned or relinquished its right to receive land revenue, and includes such village waste and forest as are mentioned in the sanad of the grant."