The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of land in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is not sustainable, and documents created to circumvent the Act's provisions are invalid.

( 1 ) THE petitioner describing himself as shanker Lal adopted son of Shri Rawat Ram, aged about 41 years, resident of Bilara, District jodhpur has submitted this writ petition seeking to question judgment and decree dated 13. 04. 1993 passed by the Assistant collector, Bilara in Revenue Suit No. 7/1983 under Section 175 of the rajasthan Tenancy Act; dated 15. 09. 1997 passed by the Revenue appellate Authority, Jodhpur in Appeal Nos. 151/1993 and 167/1993; and dated 15. 02. 2006 passed by the Board of Revenue for rajasthan, Ajmer in Appeal Nos. 33/98 and 34/98 without even joining the said Revenue Authorities as proforma parties to this writ petition.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts relevant for determination of the questions sought to be raised in this petition are that a revenue suit was filed before the assistant Collector, Bilara by the Tehsildar, Bilara under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (the Act hereinafter) with the submissions, inter alia, that the agricultural land comprised in khasra nos. 5931 and 5929/6443 measuring 2 bighas and 1 bigha 13 biswas respectively was in the khatedari of Rawat Ram son of Panna Ram bhambhi who was a member of Scheduled Caste but he transferred the land to the defendant No. 2 (petitioner) who was not a member of scheduled caste and mutation was effected on 19. 05. 1982 but the same was invalid being in contravention of Section 42 of the Act. It was prayed that the defendants be dispossessed and land be recorded as a government land. It appears that defendants smt. Dhapu wife of Rawat Ram and Shanker Lal (petitioner) in their written statement admitted that the land in question was in the khatedari of Rawat Ram but contended that provisions of Section 42 of the Act were not violated inasmuch as Rawat Ram and his wife dhapu took the petitioner in adoption by way of registered adoption deed dated 16. 12. 1981. The defendants further submitted that after the death of Rawat Ram, his wife Dhapu and adopted son Shanker lal became entitled to the land that has continued in possession of dhapu; that possession of the land was not transferred to defendant no. 2 and the suit was incompetent. It appears that the wife of Rawat ram, Mst. Dhapu also expired and her daughter Hasturi wife of kana Ram Meghwal was substituted as defendant in her place and she also filed a written statement to the effect that Section 42 of the act was not violated as the defendant No. 2 was taken in adoption on 16. 12. 1981; and that the land was earlier in possession of rawat Ram and thereafter continued in possession of Smt. Hasturi. It was again maintained that the possession of the land was never transferred to a non-scheduled caste person.

( 3 ) AFTER recording evidence, learned Assistant Collector found that the land was in the name of Rawat Ram Bhambhi, a scheduled caste person from whom the land was sought to be transferred by way of a gift deed dated 16. 12. 1981; and on the basis of the said gift deed, mutation was effected on 19. 05. 1982 in the name of Shanker lal Patel who was not a scheduled caste person. It was, therefore, held that the transfer was clearly in violation of Section 42 of the Act and could not be sustained. After rejecting other contentions, learned Assistant Collector was of opinion that once transfer was held to be invalid, the mutation effected on its basis was rendered void and it was proper to record the land in the name of available heirs of Rawat Ram. The suit was accordingly decreed and it was ordered that the mutation dated 19. 05. 1982 be cancelled and the land be recorded in the name of true heirs of deceased Rawat Ram and Dhapu and possession be taken over from Shanker Lal and be delivered to such heir of Rawat Ram.

( 4 ) THE judgment and decree dated 13. 04. 1993 aforesaid were put to challenge by way of two appeals before the Revenue appellate Authority, Jodhpur being appeal No. 151/1993 filed by the aforesaid Smt. Hasturi daughter of Rawat Ram; and another being appe