Dave, J.—This is an application by one Rodu under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and arises in the following circumstances.

2. On the 10th October, 1950, the opposite party No. 2 Chotu filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amber under sec 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949. It was stated by him that Rodu who is the petitioner in this Court was a khatedar tenant of sixteen bighas of land situated at the well Sejwali in village Bansa, Kushalpura, that he had sub-let it for cultivation to him (Chotu) and his brother Chuna and that they were cultivating it from the Svt. year 2003. It was alleged that Rodu along with others dispossessed him from that land and so he prayed for reinstatement. Rodu contested this application but on the 24th July, 1951 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amber decided the case in Chotus favour. Rodu filed a revision application against this order before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Jaipur, but since it was dismissed, he has filed the present application in this Court.

3. The petitioner has stated in the application that he had given the disputed land for cultivation to Chotu in the Svt. year 2006 and that Chotu surrendered the holding back to the petitioner in the month of Baisakh after cultivating it for one year. "It is further stated that the essentials for reinstatement under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 were, that tenant should have* been in occupation of the) holding on the 1st of April, 1948, that he should have been forcibly dispossessed of the land thereafter and that the application should have been made within three months from the date of such dispossession, but the Sub-Divisional Officer ignored the fact that Chotu was neither in occupation of the holding on 1st April, 1948 nor was he forcibly ejected, It is further pointed out that under sec. 7 of the said Ordinance, it was mandatory for the Revenue Courts to give notice to the land holder but no such notice was given. It is urged that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the members of the Board of Revenue failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them inasmuch as they did not take into consideration the essentials of law pointed out above, that they also exceeded their jurisdiction in accepting the time barred application and that they committed errors of law which are patent on the face of the record and therefore, that decision should be quashed.

4. It has been replied from the opposite side that the Sub-Divisional Officer has given his decision on all the essential questions of fact and law that the Revenue Board also decided all the points that were raised before it, that neither of them exceeded their jurisdiction nor failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them, that the applicant in fact wants this Court to sit in appeal over the judgment of the Board of Revenue and the application should be dismissed.

5. From the perusal of the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated the 24th July, 1951, it is clear that after discussing the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties he recorded the following findings :—

(1) That from the oral and documentary evidence it was proved that Chotu and Chuna who were in the cultivatory possession of the disputed land were ejected.

(2) That the fact of surrendering the land by Chotu was not proved.

(3) That it was proved that Chotu was in the cultivatory possession of the 16 bighas of land on the 1st of April, 1948.

6. Further it appears from the judgment of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan that only four points were raised before that court in revision. The first two points only are material so far as this application is concerned and they are as follows:—

(1) That no notice by the applicant was given to the land holder.

(2) That the exact date of dispossession as given in Chotus application was proved to be wrong by the plaint and the application filed by him in a civil case in which he had stated on 7th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document