1. This is an application under sec. 10 (2) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, No. IX of 1949, against an order of the S. D. O. Amber who ordered re-instatement of the non-petitioner upon khasra number 247 area 2 bighas 10 biswas in village Sheshawas, Tehsil Amber. 2. It is rather peculiar that both the parties presented applications under sec. 7 of the Ordinance for re-instatement of this very number each alleging dispossession from the land by the other. Both the applications were tried together by the S. D. O. The application of the petitioners Nanga &Nanu was rejected and that of Jhunta granted. Therefore, Nanga and Nanu have come up in revision against that order of the S. D. O. 3. The point urged before me in revision by the petitioners is that the land formed part of a jagir holding and was held by the petitioners as their khatedari land. The non-petitioner had by collusion with the Patwari obtained a Khatedari parcha in his name for this land but the same had been cancelled on appeal. The non-petitioner Jhunta had no right to this land nor he was in cultivatory possession of it. The S. D. O. was, therefore, wrong in ordering re-instatement. 4. I have looked into the copies of entries in Girdawari and found that Jhunta was in possession of this land in Smt. 2004. In Smt. 2005 Jhunta cultivated part of this land and a part was cultivated by Nanga, petitioner. In Smt. 2006 and Smt. 2007 this land was lying uncultivated. In fact both the parties were out of possession of this land and each wanted to take over possession but was prevented by the other party from doing so. That is why both the parties have applied for possession. The Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, is not meant to decide the rights of parties to occupy uncultivated land but is meant to give protec-tion to tenants who are already in possession and are cultivating the land and are forcibly dispossessed by the other party. 5. It is admitted by the witnesses Produced by Jhunta himself that the land was lying uncultivated in Smt. 2006 and Smt 2007 because Nanga did not allow Jhunta to cultivate this land. 5. It is admitted by the witnesses Produced by Jhunta himself that the land was lying uncultivated in Smt. 2006 and Smt 2007 because Nanga did not allow Jhunta to cultivate this land. This clearly meant that Jhunta was not in possession of this land in Smt. 2006 and Smt. 2007 He could not therefore, apply for re-instatement upon this land after a laps of 2 years even if he was in possession of this land before that period. The S.D.O. has not , mentioned in his order when Jhunta was dispossessed from this land. He has only mentioned that Jhunta was in possession of this land on 1.4.1948. Under the Ordinance it was not enough that the man was in possession on 1.4.1948 it was further necessary that the man had been dispossessed forcibly within three months of the date of the application for re-instatement. Since these conditions were not fulfilled in this case the S. D. O. erred in ordering re-instatement. I would, therefore, with the concurrence of my learned colleague, accept the revision petition and set aside the order of the S. D. O. and dismiss the application presented by Jhunta for re-instatement. The one presented by Nanga had already been dismissed by the S. D. O. Thus both the applications will stand dismissed. The parties were not entitled to any relief under the Ordinance. They should seek their remedy under any other law.