Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Lachman Singh for a writ of certiorary under Art 226 of Constitution, and has arisen in the following circumstances :

Ghasi Bai, Gajra Bai, and Phunda Bai opposite parties made an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants Ordinance (No. IX) of 1949, for reinstatement over certain lands of which Lachman Singh had taken possession. Their case was that they were tenants of the land for a long time, but had been ejected without process of law by Lachman Singh applicant Thereafter, they were put back in possession in June, 1947. They were however again ejected by Lachman Singh and thereafter regained possession on the 27th April, 1948. They were again ejected soon after by Lachman Singh without any authority of law. They therefore claimed reinstatement as mentioned above.

2. The Sub-divisional Officer came to the conclusion that the applicant had been ejected in June or July 1947, and got back possession on the 27th April, 1948, and were ejected again thereafter. He, therefore, ordered them to be put back in possession, and this order was upheld by the Board of Revenue on the 20th of July, 1950. Thereafter, there was a review by the applicant, as his contention was that the three ladies were not in occupation on the 1st of April, 1948, and therefore the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to reinstate them under sec. 7 of the Ordinance. This application was however rejected. The Board held that the ladies were in possession in June 1947, and were ejected soon after, and were again in possession on the 27th April, 1948, whereafter they were again ejected. It was further held that from all these facts it was clear that the ladies were legally in possession of the holding on the 1st of April, 1948, although they were not in cultivatory possession and the actual possession was with Lachman Singh who was a trespasser. The Board went on to say that it seemed equitable to hold that the entry in the name of the tenants as against a trespasser should be recognised as occupation of the holding for purposes of sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949.

3. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Ordinance IX of 1949, as the three ladies were not in possession on the 1st April, 1948. Reliance is placed on the words of sec. 7 which are as follows:—

"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 before the commencement of this Ordinance, otherwise than by process of law.....................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. It is obvious from a bare perusal of this section that it is not enough for a person to be a tenant to get reinstatement. It is also necessary that the tenant should have been in occupation of the holding on the first day of April, 1948. This occupation may be by means of actual cultivatory possession or through a sub-tenant. In this case, the finding of the Board is that the three ladies came into possession on the 27th of April, 1948, and were obviously not in occupation of the holding on the 1st of April, either through actual cultivatory possession or through any sub-tenant of theirs. Under these circumstances, the mere fact that the ladies were tenants of the holding would not entitle them to reinstatement under this section, as the second condition, namely that the tenants should be in occupation of the holding on the 1st day of April, 1948, has not been fulfilled in this case. In as much as the Revenue Court and the Board gave themselves jurisdiction by a patently wrong decision on a question of c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document