(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Appellants are tillers of the land. They are pitched against the respondent (a retired Garrison Engineer),who is an absentee landlord. Their grievance is that the land, which is the subject-matter of this appeal, which has been in their possession for long, has been ordered to be delivered wrongfully to the respondent on his seeking the same by filing the present suit, after he had lost to get possession in a proceeding under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter the Code).
(3.) The case of the respondent is that the agricultural land in question was provisionally allotted to one Idnani under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1954 by issuing a temporary sanad on 27-4-1954. Admitted case of the parties is that father of appellant No. 1, Ramnath was put into possession of the land by Idnani. According to the respondent, this had been so done because Ramnath was employed as a servant by Idnani, whereas the case of the appellant is that Ramnath was a lessee. There is no dispute that on 10-8-1965, Idnani was given permanent sanad under the aforesaid Act. There is also no dispute that the land was sold to the respondent by Idnani on 9-11-1966. It is after the purchase that the respondent invoked Section 250 of the Code seeking delivery of possession, which petition came to be allowed by Naib Tahsildar. The appeal by the first appellant's mother was allowed by Sub-Divisional Officer. The respondent appealed against that order to Additional Commissioner, but unsuccessfully. Revision to the Board of Revenue by the respondent was also dismissed:so too the review. This led the respondent to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which came to be dismissed. This is the end of the first round of litigation.