Ranawat J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of one Nandsingh whose application for restoration of possession was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer Kotah, on the 27th of July, 1950 and whose revision application was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan on the 19th of January, 1951. It is alleged by the petitioner that two plots of land, one measuring 103 bighas and the other 25 bighas were leased to him by Thikana Kherli Tanwran for a period of three years and on the termination of the period of lease the Jagirdar of Thikana Kherli dispossessed the petitioner from a portion of his land and gave possession thereof to other tenants. The petitioner claimed protection under the Tenants Protection Ordinance and applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kotah, for reinstatement. It was held by the Sub-Divisional Officer and also by the Board of Revenue that as the petitioner was not in cultivatory possession of a portion of the disputed lands in Smt. year 2006, when he is said to have been dispossessed, he was not entitled to claim any protection under the provisions of sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Tenants Protection Ordinance.

2. In this application it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner, that both the Sub-Divisional Officer Kotah, and the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan have failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them under the Tenants Protection Ordinance in disallowing the petition of the petitioner for reinstatement. It is claimed that it was the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Rajasthan Revenue Board to have reinstated the petitioner on the land from which he was dispossessed by his landlord, when the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of section 7 of the Tenants Protection Ordinance.

3. Section 7(1) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance, 1948, is as follows:—

"7(1) Any tenant who was in occupation of his holding on the first day of April 1948 and has thereafter been ejected therefrom, or dispossessed thereof or from or any part thereof;

(a) before the commencement of this Ordinance, otherwise than by process of law, or

(b) after the commencement of this Ordinance in contravention of the provisions thereof, may, within three months from the date of such ejectment or dispossession or the commencement of this Ordinance, whichever happens to be later, apply to the Sub-Divisional Officer or other officer of equal status for his reinstatement in such holding or part as the case may be."

4. Two conditions have to be satisfied before an application of a tenant under sec. 7 can succeed for reinstatement:—

(1) that the tenant must have been in occupation of his holding on the 1st day of April 1948, and

(2) that thereafter he has been ejected therefrom or dispossessed thereof or from or any part thereof.

5. In case, the two conditions under sec. 7 are satisfied and a tenant or sub-tenant applies for reinstatement within three months from the date of his ejectment or dispossession he is entitled to protection under the Tenants Protection Ordinance and it is the duty of the Sub-Divisional Officer to reinstate such tenant or sub-tenant. From a perusal of the judgment of the Rajasthan Revenue Board and that of the Sub-Divisional Officer, it appears that no definite finding has been given on the point whether the petitioner Nandsingh was in occupation of the holding on the 1st day of April, 1948.

6. As regards the fact of ejectment or dispossession of the petitioner from a part of his holding, also no definite finding appears to have been given by the Board of Revenue.

7. The grounds of decision of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan are stated in its judgment as follows:

"As a matter of fact, Nandsingh applicant sub-let a number of fields out of the fields taken on lease by him from the Jagirdar Chhagansingh. Thus he was actually a cultivator of a few fields on which his possession has not been disturbed by the Jagirdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer also maintained

Click Here to Read the rest of this document