The main legal point established in the judgment is that a serving member of the armed forces is entitled to resume the entire tenancy holding without restriction on the quantum of land that can be resumed from the tenant, as provided in Section 104(8) & (9) and Section 34(1)(d) & (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972.

This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against an order dated 17.10.1994 passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner Kangra in appeal No.81/93. 2.Brief facts of the case are that the deceased respondent Shri Ranjit Singh who was an ex-service man, applied for resumption of land to the ^ Reforms Officer Kangra on 15.5.1976. The Land Reforms Officers rejected p application on 26.10.1976 holding that the applicant has already got land more than the permissible limi of 5 Acres and therefore he was not entitled to resume the land. Shri Ranjeet Singh filed an appeal before the Collector, Kangra who on 14.9.1979 remanded the case to the Land Reforms Officer for deciding it afresh. The Land Reforms Officer again decided the matter on 23.3.1981 holding once again that the applicant had more than 5 acres under his self cultivation and therefore he was not en tiled to resume the land. The respondent filed an appeal bsfore the Collector who upheld the orders of the Land Reforms Officers on 28.7.1987. The respondent filed second appeal before the Commissioner, Kangra Division who accepted t le same vide his order dated 17.10.1994 holding that the courts below had mis-in srpreted the provisions of law in holding that Shri Ranjeet Singh had more than 5 jcres of land in his self cultivation and further held that he ir> entitled to resume the land applied for in its entirety. It is against this order of the learned Commissioner, Kangra Division dated 17.10.1994 that the present revision petition has been filed before this court. The record of the courts below has been called for and examined.

2. Both the parties have filed written arguments in the matter. On behalf of Shri Munshi Ram it is stated that the Land Reforms Officer, Kangra after scrutinizing the revenue record found the respondent Shri Ranjeet Singh as being in the possession of land measuring 3-27-79 hectare while he was not entitled to resume the land more than the prescribed limit i.e. upto 5 acres from the petitioner including the land in his personal cultivation. It has also been mentioned that LR (V) filed by the respondent was hopelessly time barred as the respondent had filed I.R. (V) Form No. 3788 on 15.5.1976. The general category was applicable to Shri Ranjeet Singh and not that of being a member of the armed forces. As such he should have filed for resumption of this land under tenancy before 31.12.1975 also Shri Ranjeet Singh had not filed the application for resumption under the provisions of Section 34 (d) (d) of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, as such, he as not entitled to eject the petitioner from the entire tenancy land. It has been contended in the written arguments that Divisional Commissioner, Kangra had wrongly ordered the petitioner to be ejected from the entire tenancy land without considering the merits of the case and the law cited in the order dated 17.10.1994 was not applicable in this case. It has been stressed that under the provision of Section 104-Sub-Sections (8 & 9) of HP. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 the respondent was only entitled to resume land to make up his holding to the prescribed limit upto 5 acres including the land under his personal cultivation and besides, he could not resume land more than half of the tenancy. 3.In written arguments on behalf of the respondent, it has been argued that the provisions applicable to Shri Ranjeet Singh are those of Sub Section 8 & 9 of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 which also cover clauses (d) & (dd) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 34. Under Sub-Section 8 and 9 there is no restriction of 50% on the land resemble from the tenancy. The provision of Sub Sections 1 to 6 of Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 do not apply to a serving member of armed forces. The Ld. Divisional Commissioner in his order dated 17.10.1994 has gone into the matter in detail after considering various aspects of the matter, the intention of