ORDER Ramesh, J Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Land Tribunal Jamakhandi dated 24.10. 1981 in respect of l/4th share in Sy.No.213/ 3 measuring 7.36 acres situate at Terdal Village, Jamkhandi Taluk, has filed this petition. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, counsel representing the contesting respondent and the Government Pleader. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a member of the joint family being the son of one Annaji, and was in military service as on the date of vesting of the land i.e., on 1.3.1974 and the land cannot be vested with the government and neither can it be treated as a tenanted land since he was in military service and he is a protected tenant under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, 1961. 4. Further, the respondent submits that the tenancy was created as early as in the year 1951 itself by the grand father of the petitioner Ramachandra who had four sons. Petitioner is the son of one of the son of Rarnachandra i.e., Annaji and in turn Annaji had four sons and as such, the share of the petitioner is only 1/16th share and that has not been clearly identified and also submitted that during the life time of the father of the petitioner, he cannot claim any right over the property itself and accordingly submitted that there is no illegality in the order of the Tahsildar or the Assistant Commissioner. 5. As per the case of the petitioner, he joined military service on 15.1.1953 and his father died on 13.7.1974 and that the petitioner has got four brothers. Further, petitioner’s father is one among the four sons of Ramachandra the original propositus and the land owner. Further, it is also to be noted that a tenancy created by a man from the Military can be resumed any time within one year from the date of his retirement. Of course the Division Bench of this Court has clearly held in the case of Joshi Vs Assistant Commissioner- that there is no starting point for filing the application except that the said person has to file such an application for resumption within one year after his retirement. 6. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the competent authority that the application filed while in service is valid holds no water. 6. In that view of the matter, the reasoning given by the competent authority that the application filed while in service is valid holds no water. However, it would be a case of continuance of tenancy as per definition under S.15 of the Land Reforms Act. In the circumstances, to claim his right of course even assuming that the petitioner has filed an application well within time, his share has to be determined so as to seek resumption of the land. That exercise has to be done. In this regard, the Land Tribunal has to hold an enquiry as to what would be the share of this petitioner since the tenancy was created by One Ramachandra who was the propositus who had four sons and in turn the petitioner is the son of one of the sons of Ramachandra. 7. As per the Hindu joint family as also as per the notification of the State Government dated 5.9.1977, the portion falling to the share of the soldier in the land held by the joint family has to be earmarked when the land is leased out by the kartha. This exercise has to be done by the Tahsildar after holding enquiry. 8. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed. Matter is remanded back to the Tahsildar to entertain the case of the petitioner to identify his share and hand over the same after holding enquiry and after affording opportunity to both the parties. 9. Petition is allowed.