JUDGMENT : JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J. 1. Because of 'merry-go-rounds' in the revenue Courts spanning over four decades in three rounds of litigation, respondent No. 3, Landowner-an Ex-serviceman, has not been able to resume his land from the appellants-tenants, to which he is entitled under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1974. 2. Facts:- 2(i). The land in question alongwith various other parcels of land was recorded in joint ownership of respondent No. 3 and his brothers, sons of Sh. Piar Singh. A family partition took place, in which the suit land fell to the share of respondent No. 3. 2(ii). Respondent No. 3 joined Indian Army on 08.09.1953. Being in armed forces, he could not cultivate the land himself. Respondent No. 3 inducted Sh. Milkhi Ram, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants, as tenant over land comprised in Khasra No. 102, measuring 14 kanals 7 marla, in Mohal Kharota and Mehar Singh & Rai Singh, sons of Sh. Ram Ditta as tenants over Khasra No. 1725, measuring 0-21-59 hectares, situated in village Chalwara. 2(iii). Respondent No. 3 instituted a suit under Section 58 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short 'Act') against the aforesaid Sh. Milkhi Ram for recovery of rent. The brothers of respondent No. 3 were also impleaded as respondents in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, Milkhi Ram died and his legal heirs, i.e. the present appellants, were brought on record. The contention of respondent No. 3 that he was owner of the suit land in terms of family partition, was supported by his brothers, who were also parties to the case. The suit was decreed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur, District Kangra in favour of respondent No. 3 (plaintiff therein) on 20.10.1986. This judgment has attained finality. 2(iv). Respondent No. 3 retired from Army on 30.09.1985. On 18.10.1985, he applied for resumption of his land under tenancy. The subsequent litigation history may be noticed in following compartments. First Round:- 2(iv)(a). The Land Reforms Officer Jawali/Tehsildar, vide his order dated 02.04.1990, allowed the resumption application of respondent No. 3 upto 5 acres of land. He, however, held that under the rules, respondent No. 3/landowner cannot resume more than 50% of the tenancy land from the tenants. 2(iv)(b). The subsequent litigation history may be noticed in following compartments. First Round:- 2(iv)(a). The Land Reforms Officer Jawali/Tehsildar, vide his order dated 02.04.1990, allowed the resumption application of respondent No. 3 upto 5 acres of land. He, however, held that under the rules, respondent No. 3/landowner cannot resume more than 50% of the tenancy land from the tenants. 2(iv)(b). The order dated 02.04.1990 passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, was challenged by respondent No. 3 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nurpur, District Kangra. Respondent No. 3 contended that he was entitled to resume the entire land under tenancy. This appeal was dismissed on 20.01.1992. 2(iv)(c). The second appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner, Kangra on 18.08.1994. The Divisional Commissioner remanded the case to the Court of Collector, Kangra, holding that the impugned order did not discuss the points raised before the Court. Second Round:- 2(iv)(d). On remand, the Collector, Kangra, vide order dated 23.07.1997, quashed the order dated 02.04.1990, passed by the Land Reforms Officer. The matter was remanded to the Land Reforms Officer. The Collector directed the Land Reforms Officer to allow the resumption of land from the tenants for self-cultivation by excluding gair mumkin land. 2(iv)(e). The Land Reforms Officer vide order dated 17.04.1999, held that respondent No. 3 was authorized to resume land for self-cultivation upto 5 acres. In all, an area of 0-75-35 hectares was allowed to be resumed by respondent No. 3. 2(iv)(f). The present appellants (tenants) preferred an appeal against the order dated 17.04.1999 to the Collector. The appeal was decided on 24.04.2001. The order of Land Reforms Officer was set aside. The matter was again remanded to the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali for fresh decision after taking into consideration the land, which was already in the ownership of land owner and to complete the shortfall upto the limit of 5 acres for resumption of land. 2(iv)(g). Respondent No. 3 challenged the order dated 24.04.2001 passed by the Collector, before the Divisional Commissioner. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 07.03.2005, upheld the order passed by the Collector on 24.04.2001. He held that the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, in his order dated 17.04.1999, had not taken into consideration the land owned by respondent No. 3 in other mohals. Third Round:- 2(iv)(h). The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 07.03.2005, upheld the order passed by the Collector on 24.04.2001. He held that the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, in his order dated 17.04.1999, had not taken into consideration the land owned by respondent No. 3 in other mohals. Third Round:- 2(iv)(h). Pursuant to the order passed by the Collector on 24.04.2001, as upheld by the Divisional Commissioner on 07.03.2005, the matter reached the Land Reforms Officer for the third time. The Land Reforms Officer decided the case for the third time on 23.06.2006. He held that respondent No. 3 was not entitled to resume any land from the tenants as he was already in possession of the land in excess of permissible limit of 5 acres. The resumption application moved by respondent No. 3 on 18.10.1985 was rejected. 2(iv)(i). Respondent No. 3 did not succeed in appeal before the Collector, Kangra, who vide order dated 04.06.2007, upheld the order dated 23.06.2006. 2(iv)(j). Further appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner on 16.11.2009. It was held that the ceiling of ownership of 5 acres in all is not relevant and is not applicable to respondent No. 3, who is covered under Sections 34(1)(d)(dd) and 104(8) & (9) of the Act. The orders dated 04.06.2007 passed by the Collector and 23.06.2006 passed by the Land Reforms Officer, Jawali, were set aside. Respondent No. 3 was allowed to resume land from each tenant upto 5 acres. 2(iv)(k). Aggrieved, the tenants, i.e. present appellants, filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. Taking stock of the entire litigation and applicable legal provisions, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 22.01.2013, upheld the order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, the revision petition was rejected. 2(v). Aggrieved against the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 16.11.2009 and by the Financial Commissioner on 21.02.2013, whereby respondent No. 3 was allowed to resume land upto 5 acres from each tenant, writ petition was filed by the appellants. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 14.06.2018. Not satisfied with the ever flowing litigation, the tenants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Contentions:- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 14.06.2018. Not satisfied with the ever flowing litigation, the tenants have preferred the instant appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Contentions:- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that respondent No. 3 cannot be allowed to resume 5 acres of land from the tenants. Learned counsel submitted that besides respondent No. 3, there were other co-owners, namely Amar Singh and Sahib Singh. Milkhi Ram (predecessors-in-interest of the appellants) was inducted as tenant over the land in question by all the co-owners. The other co-owners had not exercised their right of resumption of land. The right, title and interest of other two co-owners in the tenancy land to the extent of their shares as per provisions of Section 104 of the Act, had extinguished. Therefore, respondent No. 3 could not be allowed to resume the tenancy land. Learned counsel also argued that the appellants had been conferred proprietary rights with respect to the land falling to the shares of Amar Singh and Sahib Singh. The corresponding entries were made in the revenue record. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities to allow respondent No. 3 to resume 5 acres of land from the appellants. Defending the impugned judgment, learned Senior Counsel for contesting respondent No. 3 referred to the entire chequered history of the litigation. In particular, he brought the attention of the Court to the judgment dated 20.10.1986, passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur, in a suit filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 58 of the Act, wherein respondent No. 3 was held to be the exclusive owner over the land in question and entitled to claim rent from the present appellants. Learned Senior Counsel contended that respondent No. 3, being an Ex-serviceman, was entitled to resume 5 acres of land from the tenants in accordance with provisions of Section 104(1), (8)(9) and Section 34(d)(dd) of the Act. 4. Observations:- 4(i)(a). Section 104 of the Act gives right to a tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire interests of landowner. Learned Senior Counsel contended that respondent No. 3, being an Ex-serviceman, was entitled to resume 5 acres of land from the tenants in accordance with provisions of Section 104(1), (8)(9) and Section 34(d)(dd) of the Act. 4. Observations:- 4(i)(a). Section 104 of the Act gives right to a tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire interests of landowner. Besides conferring proprietary rights of tenancy lands upon non-occupancy tenants, the section also provides right to the landowner to resume the tenancy land before, the notified date, either 1.5 acres of irrigated or 3 acres of unirrigated land from one or more than one tenants for his personal cultivation. On such resumption, right, title and interest of the tenants over the tenancy land get extinguished. Section 104(1)(2) and (3) read as under:- "104. On such resumption, right, title and interest of the tenants over the tenancy land get extinguished. Section 104(1)(2) and (3) read as under:- "104. Right of tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire interests of landowner.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, contract, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the commencement of this Act, if the whole of the land of the landowner is under non-occupancy tenants, and if such a landowner has not exercised the right of resumption of tenancy land at any time since January 26, 1955, under any law as in force:- (i) such a landowner shall be entitled to resume before the date to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette and in the manner prescribed, either one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of unirrigated land under tenancy from one or more than one tenants for his personal cultivation and the right, title and interest (including contingent interest, if any) of the tenant or tenants, as the case may be, therefrom shall stand extinguished free from all encumbrances created by the tenant or tenants to that extent: Provided that if the tenant has taken loan from the State Government, a co-operative society or a bank for the improvement of tenancy land which the landowner has resumed under clause (i) or clause (ii) and has used such loan for the improvement of such land, then the landowner shall be liable to repay the outstanding amount of such loan and to the extent actually used for the said purpose and interest thereon to the State Government or to the Cooperative Society or a bank, as the case may be, proportionate to the improved land resumed by him; Provided further that the landowner shall not be entitled to resume from a tenant more than one half of the tenancy land; (ii) in case the landowner holds less than one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of unirrigated land in his personal cultivation, he shall be entitled to resume tenancy land only to make up the land under his personal cultivation to the extent of one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of unirrigated land, as the case may be, subject to the other conditions laid down in this section; (iii) the right, title and interest in the rest of the tenancy land of the landowner, who is entitled to resume land under clauses (i) and (ii) shall vest in the tenant free from all encumbrances with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette; (iv) in case the land under the tenancy is partly irrigated and partly unirrigated and the landowner intends to resume land of both these classes, he shall be entitled to do so in the ratio and manner to be prescribed; (v) in the event of any dispute between the landowner and the tenant with regard to the selection of land for resumption, the first right of selection of the land shall be that of the tenant who may exercise his right in the prescribed manner and before the date to be notified by the State Government in this respect in the Official Gazette; (vi) in case the tenant fails to exercise his right of selection of land by the date notified under clause (v), the Land Reforms Officer shall determine his share after giving the parties an opportunity of being beard. In such a case also, the tenant shall be given the first choice to select the land. (2) Where the landowner does not cultivate the land resumed under sub-section (1) personally within one year from taking possession thereof, then such land shall vest in the State Government on payment of an amount at the rate of ninety-six times the land revenue plus rates and cesses and such land shall be disposed of by the State Government in such manner as may be prescribed. In such an event the first right to get such land shall be that of the tenant from whom the land was resumed by the landowner. (3) All rights, title and interest (including a contingent interest, if any) of a landowner other than a landowner entitled to resume land under sub-section (1) shall be extinguished and all such rights, title and interest shall with effect from the date to be notified by the State Government in the Official Gazette vest in the tenant free from all encumbrances: Provided that if a tenancy is created after the commencement of this Act, the provision of this subsection shall apply immediately after the creation of such tenancy." 4(i)(b). As per Section 104(8) of the Act, except in the manner indicated under Section 104(9), the provisions of Section 104(1) to (6) will not apply to such tenancy lands, where the landowner is a serving member of the Armed Forces or is father of a person serving in Armed Forces upto the extent of inheritable share of such a member of the Armed Forces. As per Section 104(9), the provisions of Sub-section 104(1) to (6) will remain inapplicable to such tenancy lands during the period of service of these persons (landowners) in the Armed Forces. Thereafter, the landowners of this category can resume the land in accordance with and to the extent mentioned in Section 34. As per Section 104(9), the provisions of Sub-section 104(1) to (6) will remain inapplicable to such tenancy lands during the period of service of these persons (landowners) in the Armed Forces. Thereafter, the landowners of this category can resume the land in accordance with and to the extent mentioned in Section 34. Provisions of Section 104(8) and (9) read as under:- "(8) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (9), nothing contained in sub-sections (1) to (6) shall apply to a tenancy of a landowner during the period mentioned for each category of such landowners in sub-section 9 who,- (a) is a minor or unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from husband or widow; or (b) is permanently incapable of cultivating land by reason of any physical or mental infirmity; or (c) is a serving member of the Armed Forces; or (d) is the father of the person who is serving in the Armed Forces upto the extent of inheritable share of such a member of the Armed Forces on the date of his joining the Armed Forces, to be declared by his father in the prescribed manner. (9) In the case of landowners mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (8), the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (6) shall not apply,- (a) in case of a minor during his minority and in case of other persons mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (8) during their life time; (b) in case of persons mentioned in clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (8), during the period of their service in the Armed Forces subject to resumption of land by such persons to the extent mentioned in first proviso to clauses (d) and (dd) of sub-section (1) of section 34. "Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to such land which either owned by or is vested in the Government under any law, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, and is leased out to any person." 4(i)(c). Proprietary rights of tenancy land where its landowner is a serving member of Armed Forces, cannot be conferred over non-occupancy tenants. Such landowner has right to resume the tenancy land in accordance with Section 104(1), (8) & (9) and Section 34 of the Act. The extent to which he can resume the land is indicated in Section 104(9) read with Section 34 of the Act. Such landowner has right to resume the tenancy land in accordance with Section 104(1), (8) & (9) and Section 34 of the Act. The extent to which he can resume the land is indicated in Section 104(9) read with Section 34 of the Act. Section 34(dd) of the Act provides that where tenancy land comprises share of a landowner-member of the Armed Forces covered by Section 104(8), then such a landowner will be entitled to eject a tenant from such land upto a maximum of 5 acres. Sub-section (1) of Section 34 reads as under:- "34. Section 34(dd) of the Act provides that where tenancy land comprises share of a landowner-member of the Armed Forces covered by Section 104(8), then such a landowner will be entitled to eject a tenant from such land upto a maximum of 5 acres. Sub-section (1) of Section 34 reads as under:- "34. Grounds of ejectment of tenants.-(1) A tenant other than occupancy tenant shall not be liable to ejectment from his tenancy except on anyone or more of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that he has used the land comprised in the tenancy in a manner which renders it unfit for the purposes for which he holds it; (b) that he, where rent is payable in kind, has failed without sufficient cause to cultivate or arrange for cultivation of the land comprised in his tenancy in the manner or to the extent customary in the locality in which the land is situate; (c) that he sublets the holding or part thereof for profit without the consent of the land-owner: Provided that a member of the Armed Forces, an unmarried woman, or if married, divorced or separated from husband of a widow, a minor, a person suffering from physical or mental disability because of which he cannot cultivate the land himself, a person prosecuting studies in a recognized institution and a person under detention or imprisonment shall not be liable to ejectment because he sublets the holding or a part thereof without the consent of the land-owner; (d) that he holds his tenancy, from a person who created such tenancy within a period of six months before he became a member of the Armed Forces or while he was serving in the Armed Forces and wants to cultivate it himself on his ceasing to be member of the Armed Forces; (dd) that he holds his tenancy on the land comprising the share of a member of the Armed Forces covered by clause (d) of sub-section (8) of section 104 and who wants to cultivate it himself on his ceasing to be a member of the Armed Forces: Provided that such person or member of Armed Forces referred to in clauses (d) and (dd) above, as the case may be, shall be entitled to eject a tenant from such land upto a maximum of five acres, in the prescribed manner: Provided further that a tenant so ejected shall be restored to possession of the land if the landowner after ejecting him does not within one year cultivate it personally: Provided also that if a tenant holding land from persons mentioned in clauses (d) and (dd) of this subsection is also a member of the Armed Forces, the provision of first proviso shall not apply and the tenancy shall remain and the ejectment from tenancy shall only be on the grounds given in clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section. (e) that the tenant as failed to pay rent within a period of six months after it falls due: Provided that no tenant shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been afforded an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within a further period of six months from the date of the decree, or order directing his ejectment, and he had failed to pay such arrears during that period....................." 4(ii). Section 104(3) of the Act states that non-occupancy tenant shall acquire proprietary rights in respect of tenancy land except that which can be resumed by the landowner. Vestment of proprietary rights in the non-occupancy tenants is automatic except in case of landowners falling in the protected categories. In such cases, the vestment of land in tenants is deferred till the landowner continues to remain protected in terms of Section 104 of the Act. In other words, unless the landowner is entitled to resume the land, the vestment of proprietary rights in the non-occupancy tenant is automatic. Landowner serving in the Armed Forces falls in the protected category. He is allowed to resume tenancy land in accordance with Section 104(8)(9) and Section 34 of the Act. As per Section 34, a non-occupancy tenant can be ejected from tenancy land on the grounds indicated therein. The grounds for ejectment given in Section 34(d) & (dd) pertain to those tenancy lands, whose landowner is member of Armed Forces. In terms of Section 34 of the Act alongwith its provisos, such landowner, on ceasing to be a member of Armed Forces, is entitled to eject a tenant from his land upto a maximum of 5 acres. In the instant case, the land under the tenancy of the appellants is exclusively owned by respondent No. 3. This has been held to be so in the judgment dated 20.10.1986 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur, District Kangra, decreeing the suit filed by respondent No. 3 under Section 58 of the Act. He was held entitled to the arrears of rent with respect to the land in question from the appellants. In this suit, besides the brothers of respondent No. 3, the appellants were also parties therein. All have accepted the judgment. The same has attained finality. There is no escape from the conclusion that respondent No. 3 is the exclusive owner of the land in question. In this suit, besides the brothers of respondent No. 3, the appellants were also parties therein. All have accepted the judgment. The same has attained finality. There is no escape from the conclusion that respondent No. 3 is the exclusive owner of the land in question. Being in exclusive ownership of the land and being a member of the Armed Forces, the provisions of Section 104(1), (8) & (9) and 34(dd) of the Act come into play. The appellants-tenants could not be conferred proprietary rights over the land owned by a member of Armed Forces. Respondent No. 3-landowner had the right to resume land upto 5 acres from the appellants. He exercised his right to resume the tenancy land in 1985 after his retirement from the Army. His personal holding or land in his cultivation was not to be calculated in order to determine the extent of land to be allowed to be resumed by him. Respondent No. 3 was entitled in law to resume maximum of 5 acres of land from the appellants-tenants irrespective of landholding in his own cultivation. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 22.01.2013 is in accordance with law and was rightly not interfered with by the learned Single Judge. 5. No other point was urged. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, we find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the instant appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application is also disposed off.