JUDGMENT Rajwant Sandhu, IAS, Financial Commissioner 1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 114 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, by the Petitioners, against an order dated 7.7.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner (Revenue), in appeal No. 09/97. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent Shri Wazir Chand was enrolled in the Armed Forces as Havildar on 30.11.1962 and was discharged from the military on 30.11.1986. He filed an application alongwith LR-V form on 26.5.1987 before the Land Reforms Officer (Tehsildar), Dharamshala for resumption of land comprised in khasra No. 22,195,652, kitas 3, measuring 0-21-62 Heat situated in revenue estate Garh, Tehsil Dharamshala from the tenants under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. This property was willed in his favour by Smt. Jamuna widow of Shri Saju who expired in 1984. The Land Reforms Officer, Dharamshala vide order dated 20.8.1994 allowed the resumption application. Aggrieved by this order of the Land Reforms Officer, the present Petitioners challenged this order in appeal before the Collector, District Kangra at Dharamshala, who rejected the appeal on 29.10.1996 and held that the present, Respondent Shri Wazir Chand had 0-39-11 Hect. Irrigated self cultivated land and he had the right to resume half of the land from his tenants. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Collector, the present Petitioner has filed further appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra which was rejected by the learned Commissioner (Revenue) on 7.7.2000. 3. The record of the case has been called for and examined. The arguments advanced by the leaned Counsel for Petitioner have been heard. Written arguments on behalf of the Respondents were filed and these were perused. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argue'd that the resumption application in favour of Shri Wazir Chand had been wrongly allowed by the Land Reforms Officer. With the coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 Smt. Jamuna, widow of Shri Saju had only limited interest in the land under tenancy during her life time. The Petitioners who were recorded as tenants in the area measuring 0-21-62 ha. in Khasra Nos. 22,195,652 situated in revenue estate Garh, Tehsil Dharamsala could not acquire proprietary rights on her death. The Petitioners who were recorded as tenants in the area measuring 0-21-62 ha. in Khasra Nos. 22,195,652 situated in revenue estate Garh, Tehsil Dharamsala could not acquire proprietary rights on her death. Since Smt. Jamuna and the other widow Smt. Suto fell in the protected category of tenants under Section 104 of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Smt. Suto's holding had incorrectly been transferred to Smt. Jamuna. This area should immediately have gone to the teannts by way of transfer of proprietary rights. Since, Smt. Jamuna had only limited interest she had no right to will the property to another person who could then seek resumption of the land under tenancy. The acquisition of proprietary rights by the tenants in this case had only been postponed till the time that Smt. Jamuna died and thereafter the tenants automatically acquired proprietary rights. It was also stressed that Shri Wazir Chand was in no way related to Smt. Jannma and the interpretation of the Land Reforms Officer that on the death of Smt. Jamuna this land was inherited by Shri Wazir Chand as per her will and he was thus eligible as an owner who was himself in the protected category to seek resumption of the land under tenancy, on account of being a serving soldier was incorrect. The whole proceedings of the land under tenancy being inherited by Shri Wazir Chand and the subsequent resumption by him of some part of this land was being challenged. 5. In written arguments filed on behalf of the Respondent, Shri Wazir Chand attention was drawn in Khaleloo Ram and Ors. v. Kashmir Singh 1985 SLJ 478, laid down by the learned predecessor of this Court wherein it was held that if a protected category of tenant passed on the land under tenancy to another protected category of tenant, proprietary rights in respect of the land under tenancy could not be acquired by the tenants. In that case the owner of the land, was a physically handicapped person who had willed the property to his daughter-in-law who was a widow and to his minor grand-son. In the present case there is no parallel to the case cited above 1985 SLJ 478, did not make any mentfon of resumption of land under tenancy by a person in the protected category. In the present case there is no parallel to the case cited above 1985 SLJ 478, did not make any mentfon of resumption of land under tenancy by a person in the protected category. Shri Wazir Chand although an ex-serviceman had no connection whatsoever with Smt. Jamuna holder of the land under tenancy, Property transferred in this manner hits adversely the interest of the tenants and would be a misinterpretation of the law that affords protection to the protected categories viz. physically handicapped persons, widows, minors and serving soldier/ex-servicemen. In this case the mutation of inheritance in respect of land belonging to Smt. Suto widow of Shri Saju who died in the year 1976, in favour of Smt. Jamuna first needs review. Thereafter the Land Reforms Officer must consider the question of conferment of proprietary in respect of this area on the tenants. 6. Regarding the land owned by Smt. Jamuna widow which was under tenancy, it is held that her interest in the same was only a limited one due to the promulgation of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 and she could not alienate this area in her lifetime or on her death in favour of any other person. Mutation No. 78 transferring the ownership of land under tenancy to Shri Wazir Chand and others through 'will' was not in order and needs review. The Land Reforms Officer, on being informed of the death of Smt. Jamuna was bound to consider the claim of the tenants on the area held by her as owner for conferment of proprietary rights rather than affording protection the persons who succeeded Smt. Jamuna's interest in the land consequent to implementation of her 'will' through mutation No. 78. The revision petition is accepted. The orders of the Land Reforms Officer dated 20.8.1994, are set aside. Announced in the open Court today the 7th August, 2006. Record of the Courts below be returned and the case file of this Court be consigned to the record room after due completion.