Ranawat, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India' against the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated the 4th of January, 1954.
(2.) CHAJURAM and Roshanlal filed a petition in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer Alwar, on the 6th of July, 1952, under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance for reinstatement on certain fields specified in their petition against Ram Narain and 6 others. It was alleged by the petitioner that they had been dispossessed on the 2nd of July, 1952. The petition was contested by Ram Narain and others on the ground that the petitioners had voluntarily surrendered the fields except No. 337 on the expiry of their term of tenancy which was said to be of one year. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, after inquiry, found in favour of Ram Narain and other that CHAJURAM and Roshanlal had surrendered their lands voluntarily. Their petition was, therefore, dismissed by him. CHAJURAM and Roshanlal went in revision to the Board of Revenue and that petition was allowed by the Board of Revenue on two grounds: - (1) That the claim of CHAJURAM in respect of field No. 337 had been admitted by Ram Narain and his petition to that extent should have been allowed. (2) That it had not been established that the term of tenancy of CHAJURAM and Roshanlal was for a fixed period and that they had voluntarily surrendered on expiry of that term. It was observed by the learned Members of the Board that "a plea of voluntary surrender to be an answer to a claim of reinstatement should be that of a tenant who has voluntarily give up the holding on the expiry of term of his lease. " On this construction of sec. 7 (5), the learned Members of the Board reversed the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Alwar and ordered reinstatement in favour of CHAJURAM and Roshanlal in respect of the fields for which they had applied. The case of Ram Narain and others before this court is that sec. 7 of R. P. T. O. gives relief to tenants who were in occupation their holdings on the 1st of April, 1948 or thereafter and who had been ejected there form or dispossessed thereof or from any part thereof and relief can be given under the provisions of sec. 7 to tenants who had voluntarily surrendered their lands. It is argued that a person who voluntarily surrenders his land cannot be considered to have been ejected or dispossessed. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Nand Singh vs. Rajasthan Revenue Board (1) and Lachman Singh vs. Ghasi Bai (2 ). On the strength of the latter ruling it is urged that this case is one in which this court should interfere in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, as there is a patent error on the face of the record. Mr. Yadav who appeared on behalf of Chajuram and Roshanlal conceded that the learned Members of the Board of Revenue were not right in basing their decision on the interpretation of sec. 7 (5)as the provisions of that section only apply to the cases of tenants whose cases full within the scope of sec. 7 (l), and the provisions of sub-sec. (5) cannot control the language of sec. 7 (1 ). The learned counsel of both the sides are at one that recourse to sec. 7 cannot be had by the tenants voluntarily surrendering their holdings or parts thereof. Obviously, the manner in which the learned Members of the Board have construed sec. 7 is not proper. Tenants voluntarily surrendering their lands cannot be regarded as having been ejected or dispossessed in the meaning of sec. 7 (1) and consequently they cannot claim the protection of sec. 7 (1), The language of sec. 7 (5) which has been considered by the learned Members of the Board, is not intended to qualify the provision of sec. 7 (1 ). The provision of sec. 7 (1) does not admit of a different meaning and the learned counsel of both the sides admit that this is a case of patent error on the face of the record, calling for interference by this court. The finding of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was in favour of Ram Narain and other that Chajuram and Roshanlal had surrendered the lands voluntarily except half of field No. 337 and unless the learned Members of the Board of Revenue came to a different finding there was no case for them to interfere with the order of the first court. This petition succeeds and the order of the Board of Revenue dated the 4th January, 1954, is set aside except in so far as in decides the question of reinstatement of Chajuram and Roshanlal on half portion of filed No. 337. We would leave it to the learned Members of the Board to decide whether there was voluntary surrender by Chajuram and Roshanlal as held by the Sub Divisional Officer, Alwar, or, this is a case of ejectment or dispossession in the meaning of sec. 7 (1) of the R. P. T. O. and to determine the case according to law. Under the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. . ;