Dave, J. —This is an application by two persons Jhunta and Mahadeva under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts leading to this application are that on the 10th of August, 1950, the opposite party No. 2 Balu and his son No. 3 Ram Nath presented an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 before the Anti Ejectment Officer, i.e., the Assistant Collector Sawai Jaipur. It was alleged by them that the second petitioner in this case Mahadeva was a khatedar tenant of sixteen fields in the village Talpatti, Tehsil Sawai Jaipur, that out of those* sixteen khasra Numbers, five fields numbering 77, 127, 129, 289 and 292 were in their sole cultivatory possession as sub-tenants from the Svt. Year 1997, while in the remaining eleven fields numbering 31, 290, 291, 294, 296, 297, 300, 426, 441, 442 and 443 they were co-tenants of the first petitioner Jhunta, that with the assistance of the petitioners Jhunta and Mahadeva, four persons namely Lalu, Mahadeva, Govinda and Kana had dispossessed them from the field and, therefore, their possession should be re-instated. That application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on the 15th October, 1951 on the ground that it was not a dispute between landlord and tenant but between tenant and tenant interse and therefore, sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection pi Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was not applicable to the case. Balu and Ram Nath then went in revision against this order to the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Jaipur. On the 17th March, 1952, the Board of Revenue allowed the revision petition. It was held by that tribunal that from the entries in the land records and the statement of the Patwari, the applicants were found to be in sole possession of the khasra Numbers, 77, 127, 129, 289 and 292, and that they were entitled to remain in possession of them. As regards the remaining khasra Numbers, it was decided that Mahadeva who was their khatedar tenant had sublet them to the applicant Jhunta who had taken Balu as partner in cultivating the land and that since he was neither a co-tenant nor a sub-tenant he, could not ask for reinstatement. It is against this decision of the Revenue Board that the, present application has been filed by Jhunta and Mahadeva.

3. The first contention raised by the petitioners learned advocate before us is that the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949 was promulgated with a view to put a check on the growing tendency of land holders to eject or dispossess tenants from their holdings, that in the present case the dispute was really one between tenants inter se and not between a land holder and a tenant as found by the Assistant Collector, that the said Ordinance was therefore not applicable to the present case and the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction by assuming powers which were not given to it under the said Ordinance. It is prayed that a writ of certiorari should be issued and the above mentioned judgment of the Revenue Board dated the 17th March, 1952 should be quashed.

4. The Board of Revenue has neither filed any reply nor anybody has put in appearance in this matter on its behalf.

5. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 however, have filed their reply. It has been urged by their learned advocate before us that the facts stated by the petitioners are not correct, that so far as the five fields numbering 77, 127, 129, 289 and 292 are-concerned, the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were the only sub-tenants of Mahadeva, that they were in the sole culti-vatory possession of those fields, that there was no question of a dispute between tenants inter se, that it was the khatedar tenant Mahadeva who, in collaboration with Jhunta, had dispossessed them, that this case was therefore, certainly covered by the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, that the Board of Revenue had perfect jurisdiction to* decide the revenue application under sec. 10 of the said Ordinance and its decision being c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document