JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing Annexure-4 passed by the Tehsildar, Chohtan in Revenue Case No. 10/1993 dated 30.8.1994 whereby the Tehsildar, Chohtan while exercising power under Section 63(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 extinguished the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 63(l)(viii) of the Act of 1955 on the ground that the petitioner migrated from India to a foreign country without obtaining valid passport or visa; so also, order dated 26.12.1995 passed in appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 225 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and the order dated 4.8.1997 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer whereby the Board of Revenue upheld the order passed by the Tehsildar dated 3.8.1994 and order of the Addl. Collector, Barmer dated 26.12.1995. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although in the criminal case registered against the petitioner for offence under Section 3(6) of the Indian Passport Act, the petitioner was convicted by the Munsiff Court Barmer but the word "migration" is flexible because admittedly the petitioner is citizen of India. Further, it is submitted that in the judgment rendered by this Court, reported in 2004(2) WLC 327 , the Division Bench of this Court held that even in the event of prosecution in the year 1976 for crossing border it does not mean that the petitioner migrated to Pakistan for all purposes and this fact was to be considered by all the Courts below but it was not considered, therefore, the Division Bench remitted the case to the Trial Court for deciding the same upon the aforesaid fact, therefore, it is submitted that all the orders impugned may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner himself is not disputing the fact that he was convicted by the Criminal Court in the case registered against him under Section 3/6 of the Indian Passport Act; more so, he has accepted the guilt before the Court for which he was convicted, therefore, no illegality was committed by the Tehsildar in passing the impugned order in view of Section 63(l)(viii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, therefore, the concurrent finding given by all the Courts below does not require any interference. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival submissions made before me. 5. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have considered the rival submissions made before me. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner is not disputing that a criminal case under Section 3/6 of the Indian Passport Act was registered against him in the year 1975 and in the year 1976 the same was decided because the petitioner himself accepted the guilt. I have perused the finding given by Tehsildar, Chohtan, Addl. Collector, Barmer and Board of Revenue, Ajmer, in which, it is categorically mentioned that the petitioner was not only found guilty for committing offence under Section 3/6 but he was also found indulging in illegal activities on the border, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Tehsildar was in violation of any provision of the Act of 1955. Under Section 63(l)(viii) of the Act of 1955 following provision is provided for taking action to extinguish tenancy, which reads as under: "63. Tenancy when extinguished. - (1) The interest of tenant in his holding or a part thereof, as the case may be, shall be extinguished-(viii) if he migrates from India to a foreign country without obtaining a valid passport or without lawful authority." 6. In View of above, I have perused the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of LR's of Abdul v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2004(2) WLC (Raj.) 327 : 2004 (1) DNJ (Raj) 335 , in which the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for deciding the controversy afresh with certain directions. In para 38 of the said judgment, vthe Division Bench of this Court made following adjudication: "38. In the present case, the petitioner has tried to show that he has been continuously in India before the incident took place in 1976. He has been throughout in India and he has been in cultivatory possession of the land in question and has actually cultivated the land that he had not move to Pakistan but was only returned from his sister's house which too is in Indian territory but near the Boarder. In such case the question of unintentional straying in foreign territory also cannot be ruled out." 7. In such case the question of unintentional straying in foreign territory also cannot be ruled out." 7. Upon perusal of the above adjudication, it is abundantly clear that in that case the petitioner tried to show that he was continuously living in India and he remained throughout in India and was in cultivatory possession of the land in question; so also, he has not moved to Pakistan but only returned from his sister's house which, too, was in the Indian border but located near the border. But, here, in this case, the petitioner accepted the guilt before the Court, therefore, the facts of the present case are altogether different than the facts of the aforesaid judgment. 8. In view of above, I am of the opinion that the action taken by the Tehsildar, Chohtan under Section 63(l)(viii) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was perfectly in consonance with law because the petitioner was found guilty for offence committed by him under Section 3/6 of the India Passport Act.Therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******