ORDER S. Rajan, Member This is an application for review against the order passed by Shri Y. Bhargava, Member, Board of Revenue, on 17-12-62. u/s 51(2) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, no order shall be reviewed except on the grounds provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure. of the three grounds for review mentioned in the CPC the ground for review according to the counsel for the applicant is that there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record as Shri Bhargava in his order did not discuss the points mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application for revision presented before the Board. The counsel for the non-applicant argued that Shri Bhargava was right in not discussing the points mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application for revision as the counsel for the applicant did not discuss these points in his arguments before Shri Bhargava. I shall first discuss the argument of the counsel for the non-applicant that it is not necessary to discuss in the order any point which has not been discussed in the arguments made before the officer passing the order. The application for revision is in fact a written argument presented before the Court and the subsequent oral argument is only an elaboration and clarification of the points mentioned in the application for revision. If in a case the counsel for the applicant does not argue or refuses to argue then the Court will have to go through the application and discuss the points mentioned in it. So the failure of a counsel to discuss certain important points mentioned in the application for revision does not mean that the Court can completely ignore those important points. So the argument of the counsel for the non-applicant is unsound and the Court will have to consider the important points in the application for revision although they are not discussed in the oral arguments. Again it is not necessary for the Court to discuss each and every point mentioned in the application. The application some time contains in addition to prima facie good points, arguments which are prima facie frivolous and unsound. If the discussion in the order is quite conclusive and proves the findings without any shadow of doubt that order would be a good order even though there may be no discussion of each and every point urged in the application. If the discussion in the order is quite conclusive and proves the findings without any shadow of doubt that order would be a good order even though there may be no discussion of each and every point urged in the application. Coming to the present case the grounds raised in paragraph 4 of the application for revision presented before Shri Bhargava were that as the non-applicant did not have any patta he was not entitled to get possession of the land in dispute unlike the cases of those dispossessed tenants who had pattas, that not issuing a notice as mentioned in Section 317 of the Kanoon Mal was only a technical error, that the non-applicant was entitled to compensation at the most for one year, that the non-applicant is not entitled for any possession in future, and, that the additional Commissioner did not refer to Bisala 19, page 238 shown to him. Thus the applicant wanted to make a distinction between tenants having pattas and tenants not having pattas. Again according to the applicant the issue of a notice was only a trifling formality and failure to issue a notice has very little legal significance. As a sort of generous gesture the applicant has conceded that the non-applicant could at the most get compensation for one year only and not for a larger period. The applicant also says that giving the non-applicant possession in future is out of question. All the above contentions hinge on the fact that the non-applicant has not got the patta. It is to be seen whether failure to have a patta has such serious consequences as the applicant would like us to believe. It is a fact that Shri Bhargava has not discussed the above points in his order. The above points are also not frivolous or prima facie unsound. I have already shown that the fact that the counsel for the applicant did not argue these points in his oral arguments is of no importance. I, therefore, find that the failure to discuss the points mentioned in paragraph 4 of the application for revision is an error apparent on the face of the record. So the order of Shri Bhargava could be reviewed. I shall now discuss the points in paragraph 4 of the application for revision which were not discussed by Shri Bhargava in his order. So the order of Shri Bhargava could be reviewed. I shall now discuss the points in paragraph 4 of the application for revision which were not discussed by Shri Bhargava in his order. I shall first discuss the status of tenants who do not have a patta. According to the counsel for the applicants-tenants having no patta have practically no rights under the law and are not entitled to possession when they are dispossessed and could have at the most compensation for one year. The counsel for the applicant read out Section 283 of the Kanoon Mal in support of his contentions. Section 288 of the Kanoon Mal only states that every Gair Dakhilkar Kashtakar must get a patta from the Malguzar and should also execute a Kabuliyat in favour of the Malguzar. Section 283 of the Kanoon Mal also states that if a patta or Kabuliyat is not executed the parties can apply to the Tahsildar who shall get the patta and Kabuliyat executed. Section 284 of the Kanoon Mal states that if there are some disputes on account of there not being a patta or Kabuliyat these disputes shall be settled by the Tahsildar and officers superior to him. There is nothing in the Kanoon Mal which draws a sharp distinction between Kashtkars having patta and Kashtkars not having patta. In Section 2 (27) the word 'Kashtkar' has been defined as a person who is liable to pay rent or who would have been liable to pay rent if there had been no contract expressed or implied to the contrary. Coming to the present case it is clear from the copy of the Khasra for Samvat 2003 issued on 15-5-47 which is found in the Tahsil office records that in Samvat 2003 Bherusingh was a Gair Dakhilkar tenant in possession of the land for ten years and paying an annual rent of Rs. 14. When Bherusingh has been in undisturbed possession for ten years paying an annual rent of Rs. 14 which has obviously been accepted by the applicant it cannot be said that there is very little difference between Bherusingh and a trespasser simply because of the fact that the agreement between Bherusingh and the applicant was not put in writing in the forms of patta and Kabuliyat. 14 which has obviously been accepted by the applicant it cannot be said that there is very little difference between Bherusingh and a trespasser simply because of the fact that the agreement between Bherusingh and the applicant was not put in writing in the forms of patta and Kabuliyat. On account of the oral understanding between Bherusingh and the applicant, Bharusingh was liable to pay rent for the lands held by him and so he comes under the definition of Kashtkar as given in Section 2 (27) of the Kanoon Mal. As Bherusingh was not a Maurusi Kashtkar he was clearly a Gair Maurusi Kashtkar. The Kanoon Mal does not make any distinction between Gair Maurusi Kashtkars having patta and Gair Maurusi Kashtkars not having patta. I shall now discuss whether the issue of a notice u /s 317 of the Kanoon Mal was only a trifling formality which is not of much legal importance. Issue of notice in time is quite necessary so that the person served with the notice can make other alternative arrangements to supplement his income in case of dispossession and so that he may not make any arrangements for the cultivation of the land in the coming season. When a person is dispossessed of the land in his possession there will naturally be a decrease in his income and so in order to bring bis income to the original level the cultivator may have to think of becoming a sub-tenant to some other persons either for a cash rent or on Batai system. Such sub-tenancies are not readily available and one has to search for them and negotiate for them. Such activities naturally take a considerable period of time. Again for the cultivation of the land for the coming season good farmers generally make some preparations like ploughing the soil, dumping manure etc. etc. The prudent farmers may even decide to purchase some more bullocks, good seeds, fertilizers etc. etc. That is why giving a notice in time is very necessary before dispossession. Thus giving of notice in time is by no means a trifling formality and failure to give a notice cannot be treated lightly as a technical mistake having no legal significance. The prudent farmers may even decide to purchase some more bullocks, good seeds, fertilizers etc. etc. That is why giving a notice in time is very necessary before dispossession. Thus giving of notice in time is by no means a trifling formality and failure to give a notice cannot be treated lightly as a technical mistake having no legal significance. If a notice is not given in time then on account of his commitments and because of his not having made alternative plans the person in possession has a right to cultivate the land for the next agricultural season. Applying the above principles let us examine the present case. From the plaint dated 24-6-47 of Bherusingh presented before the Tahsildar it appears that he was forcibly dispossessed on 14-5-47. The Tahsildar put Bherusingh in interim possession on 6-7-47 but he was again dispossessed by the applicant. Samvat 2004 is from 1-7-47 upto 30-6-48. So according to Section 317 of the Kanoon Mal if the applicant wanted to dispossess Bherusingh for Samvat 2004 he should have given a notice to Bherusingh before 1-5-47. As the applicant did not give a notice at all Bherusingh was entitled to possession in Samvat 2004 which is from 1-7-47 to 30-6-48. So, even though the applicant may have been in wrongful possession in Samvat 2004, for legal purposes, Bherusingh should be deemed to have been the person in possession for Samvat 2004. On 31-1-48 Sections 317, 318 and 319 were amended. According to the amendments which came in force on 31-1-48 a Gair Maurusi tenant could be evicted in the manner prescribed in new Section 317 unless his case is covered by new Section 318. I have already shown that Bherusingh is a Gair Maurusi Tenant and that he had no patta. I have also shown that for legal purposes Bherusingh should be deemed to have been in possession in Samvat 2004 from 1-7-47 to 30-6-48 as no notice was given to him u /s 317. As the date 31-1-48 falls within Samvat 2004 in which Bherusingh is legally to be deemed to be in possession although not actually in possession Bherusingh gets the advantage of the amendments which came into force on 31-1-48. As the date 31-1-48 falls within Samvat 2004 in which Bherusingh is legally to be deemed to be in possession although not actually in possession Bherusingh gets the advantage of the amendments which came into force on 31-1-48. So if Bherusingh was to be evicted for Samvat 2005 or later Sam vats the applicant should have followed the procedure laid down in the new sections, namely, new Section 317, new Section 318 and new Section 319. The above course was not followed by the applicant and so the applicant's possession has throughout been illegal and the non-applicant though out of actual possession should be deemed to have been in possession for all the period for which he was wrongfully dispossessed as the applicant did not bother to do the eviction according to law. There is also no legal basis for the contention that a tenant without patta can get compensation for one year only at the most. Risala 19, page 238, has also no bearing on the present case. I, therefore, see no necessity to interfere with the orders of Shri Bhargava in review. The application for review is rejected. Final Result : Dismissed