( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, dated 3rd September, 1969, declaring that the non-petitioner No. 1 held the suit land as a sub-tenant on 2nd October, 1951 and was, therefore, eligible to be declared as a pucca tenant under Section 38 of the madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951.

( 2 ) PLACING reliance on the majority view in Ayyubkhan v. Fundilal, 3967 Rev. Nirnaya 516 (FB) Shri R. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to decide any question relating to the rights or title of the parties to the land as under Section 38 of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, they were only concerned in accepting the deposits of the amounts and, therefore, the findings reached by them are of no legal consequence. He further contends that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate upon title to the land is not barred and, therefore, the matter would be at large to be decided in the suit which the claimant must file for the establishment of his rights. Lastly, he contends that in view of the majority decision, the non-petitioner