JUDGMENT G.P. Bhutt, J. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the order of Mudholkar J. in Miscellaneous Petition No. 420 of 1954. The dispute is in respect of khasra Nos. 1157, 1579, 1255, 1581, 1589 and 1884, having a total area of 4.87 acres, situate in mauza Kuriyari, tahsil Janjgir, district Bilaspur. These fields formed the occupancy holding of Rangnath, father of Respondent No. 1 and were recorded in his name in the last settlement. On his death, the fields were mutated in the name of his son Dhaniram who died sometime in 1945-46. Respondent No. 1 is his real brother. The Appellant Babulal filed an application on 6-6-1950 before the Superintendent of Land Records claiming mutation of the fields in his name on the ground of his possession since the death of Dhaniram. This application was heard and allowed by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, on the report of the Revenue Inspector. The first Respondent Gendram and his two brothers thereupon moved the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, Respondent No. 3, for mutating their names in place of Dhaniram. The notice of this application was sent to the Appellant Babulal and his two brothers, Krishnarao and Ramadhar. The report of the process-server was that they refused to accept the notice. The Deputy Commissioner thereupon proceeded ex part and after hearing the first Respondent and his two brothers ordered that the fields be recorded in their names. The Appellant then moved the Deputy Commissioner for revision of the order but the application was dismissed. The Appellant filed an appeal to the Board of Revenue against this order but the appeal was dismissed by the second Respondent as not maintainable, on the authority of Mangloo v. Board of Revenue 1954 NLJ 131. The learned single Judge was of the opinion that the case was covered by that authority and accordingly dismissed the petition. In Mangloo v. Board of Revenue 1954 NLJ 131, it was held that the question whether the corrections made in the annual papers on the ground that the entries were mistaken was not covered by Section 47(1) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act, 1917, and as the corrections do not affect any legal rights, they cannot be questioned in a Court of Law. That was, however, a case under the C.P. Land Revenue Act. That was, however, a case under the C.P. Land Revenue Act. The present case, on the other hand, falls under the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, and is, therefore, covered by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Balkishan v. State of M.P. 1956 NLJ 370. Section 45 of the said Act provides that any person who immediately before the date of vesting was in possession of any holding as an absolute occupancy tenant or an occupancy tenant shall, on and from the date of vesting, be deemed to be a tenant of the State and shall hold the land in the same rights and subject to the same restrictions and liabilities as he was entitled or subject to immediately before the date of vesting. Village papers are inclusive evidence of possession and, therefore, the entries made therein are liable to affect the rights of the parties under Section 45, Accordingly an order, either accepting or rejecting a claim for mutation or for correction the entries would, if it affects the question of possession immediately before the date of vesting, be referable to Section 45. In such a case, the order would be appealable under Section 84. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue is quashed. The Board of Revenue shall now decide the revenue appeal with advertance to the above remarks. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. The outstanding amount of the security shall be refunded to the Appellant. Appeal allowed.