1. This case has been submitted by the Collector,PaIi as a reference under sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act No. 1 of 1951. As this is a case under the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, sec. 28 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, did not apply. The remedy provided in the P. T. O. itself is an application to the Board of Revenue under sec. 10 of that Ordinance, and the party concerned should have approached the Board of Revenue rather than the Collector. As the Board, however, has the power to call for the record, and examine it and pass such order as it thinks fit, the case can be considered under that section without any formal application from any party to the Board. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that one Lala Sirvi, applied to the S. D. O , Pali under sec. 7 (2) of the P. T. O. for re-instatement upon the land from which he had been dispossessed. The S. D. O. after holding an enquiry ordered for re-instatement and further added that the applicant agreed to pay Hasil at 1/4th share of the produce, and get the Lata done at Gundoj. 3. The provisions of the P. T. O. only provided for re-instatement of the applicant upon the land from which he might have been ejected or dispossessed. It does not provide for fixing the share of Latai or for making an order for the place or manner of Latai. The S. D. O. clearly exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order re: share of Latai and place of Latai. 4. I would, therefore, subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague modify the order passed by the S. D. O., Pali, and hold that order with regard to the share of Latai and the place of Latai should be treated as cancelled, and only the order for re-instatement should be considered as subsisting.