- (1.) THIS is an application in revision under Sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance No. IX of 1949 against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer Chechat dated 31. 7. 52.
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that on 19. 7. 52 Ghasi Lal the non-applicant filed an application against the applicant here that he had been forcibly ejected by the applicant from his holding No. 583 & 584/319 & 584, measuring 53 bighas and 11 biswas in village Dabri, Tehsil Sangod. THE Sub Divisional Officer passed order of restoration in favour of the non-applicant. It is against this order that this application has been filed in revision. A reference was made by Shri Kishen Puri the then Member, Board of Revenue to the Full Bench on two points i. e. (i) whether the application under Sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Protection of Tenants Ordinance lies against a military personnel referred to in clause 1 and 2 of the revenue Department notification No. F. 1 (4) Rev. 1/51 dated 11. 1. 51 and (ii) that whether the term "government'" used in clause 1 and 2 of the aforesaid Ordinance means the Government of Rajasthan or Central Government. The Full Bench held, vide their decision dated 20. 7. 53, that all land belonging to a military personnel mentioned in the notification has been exempted from the provisions of the Ordinance and the Ordinance should be deemed to be repealed so far as the land belonging to the military personnel is concerned as decided by the Full previously on 10 8 51 and reported in R. L. W. 1952 (Revenue Supplement) 38. The other point was also replied as under the expression "government" as used in the revenue department Notification under reference applies to both the Rajasthan and the Central Government. The counsel for the parties was heard. Counsel for the applicant has raised the following two objections i. e. (i) that the non-applicant has not proved himself to be a military personnel and (ii) that the land belonging to the military employee means that the land should be under cultivation of military employee himself and (iii) that land belongs to thikana and not Durjansal Singh and that Durjansal Singh as military personnel should be distinguished from his capacity as the Jagirdar. The first objection has been replied by the counsel for the applicant that by the statement of Raghunath in the Sub-Divisional Officer's court which has not been rebutted by the opposite-party his client has been proved to be a military employee in the Government of India posted in West Bengal, therefore his point fails. The other contention that the meaning of the word "belonging" to the military employee means under the cultivation of the military employee is not apprehend able. It simply means that the land should be in the owner-ship of the military employee. It does not restrict it to that land which is cultivated by a military employee. As regards the third contention the jagir is held by Durjansal Singh. He is therefore the land-holder and he is also a military personnel. Therefore the distinction which the learned counsel wants to make is indistinguishable. This contention cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances we accept the application and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chechat. .;