- (1.) THIS is a petition under Art 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE non-petitioner, Moolchand, had made an application under sec. 7 of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance for re-instatement on certain land alleged to be in his possession and of which it was said that he had been dispossessed by Kundan. THE application was once dismissed for (default, but was restored on an application made in that behalf, and after enquiry the order of reinstatement was nude. THE petitioner Kundan filed a revision to the Board of Revenue and contended that the Anti-ejectment Officer had no jurisdiction to restore the petition. THE objection was over-ruled. In this petition Kundan reiterates his objection that the Anti-ejectment Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the restoration application, and that all subsequent proceedings were without jurisdiction. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance provides a summary enquiry in respect of complaints of dispossession, |if made within the specified period. It does not contemplate a dismissal of the application for default, and, therefore, the Anti-ejectment Officer had inherent jurisdiction to restore an application which he may have dismissed for default. The Anti-ejectment Officer had not acted contrary to law, and his sabsequent proceedings cannot be challenged on the ground of want of jurisdiction. The petition has no force and is dismissed with costs. .;