A member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can file a suit under Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, against a trespasser who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, if such transaction is illegal according to Sections 42 and 46a of the Act.

KASLIWAL, J.

( 1 ) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that Chhotey and Chhidda filed a civil suit under Ss. 183 and 188 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Damodar and Samunder Singh for perpetual injunction and eviction in respect of agricultural land Khasra Nos. 1898, 1899/1, 1899/2, and 1958 corresponding to new Khasra Nos. 2017 and 2022 situate at village Bagthar Tehsil-Baseri District Bharatpur (now District Dholpur ). The case of the plaintiffs was that they were members of Scheduled Caste and Khatedar tenants of the land in question, while the defendants were not members of Scheduled Caste. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 Damodar wrongly got entries made in Samvat year 2019 as sub-tenant in whole of khasra Nos. 1898 and 1958 and half of Khasra No. 1899/1. The plaintiffs had never given the aforesaid land for cultivation to the defendants and in the alternative, if any land was given on sub-lease, the same was illegal, void ab initio and as such the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain a permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to interfere in the cultivation of plaintiffs and in case it was found that the defendants had come into possession of the lands, then they should be evicted from such land. Defendant No. 2 Samunder Singh filed the written statement and admitted the allegations made by the plaintiffs. Defendant Damodar filed a written statement and contested the suit and his main contention was that the plaintiffs themselves had given the lands in dispute to Ratan Singh father of defendant Damodar on Jan. , 12, 1961 by executing Patta and the defendants were also inducted as sub-tenants and they obtained possession of the said lands on partition between them and Ratan Singh.

( 2 ) THE Assistant Collector, Dholpur, arrived at the conclusion that the plea of the defendant was justified that Ratan Singh was inducted as sub-tenant by the plaintiffs by means of the Pattas Ex. D1 and D2. He also arrived at the conclusion that Damodar defendant was found to be sub-tenant and in continuous possession from Samvat 2118. The Assistant Collector, in these circumstances, dismissed the suit by his order dated March 28, 1969. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Revenue Appellate Authority, Alwar by judgment dated Feb. 27, 1973 allowed the appeal and held that the plaintiffs were members of Scheduled Caste and any sub-lease executed by them in favour of Ratan Singh was contrary to the provisions of S. 46a of the Act. He further found that in view of an amendment made in S. 183 of the Act, the plaintiffs were entitled to bring a suit against the defendants, who were trespassers as sub-letting was illegal. Defendant Damodar filed a second appeal in the Board of Revenue but the Board of Revenue dismissed the second appeal by order dated March, 1, 1975.

( 3 ) DAMODAR, in these circumstances, filed a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the learned single Judge by order dated Feb. 2, 1984, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved against the order of the learned single Judge, Damodar has filed the present appeal.

( 4 ) MR. Mehrish, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that even if it may be admitted that sub-tenancy granted in favour of the defendants was illegal as being contrary to the provisions of S. 46-A of the Act, no suit could have been filed by the plaintiffs under Ss. 183 and 188 of the Act. The only remedy in this regard was provided under S. 175 of the Act and under that section both the transferor as well as the transferee were liable to ejectment on the application of the land-holders i. e. the State of Rajasthan in the present case. It was submitted that S. 175 was a section specially providing for ejectment for illegal transfer or sub-letting and in case of such special provision, the general provision contained in S. 183 for ejectment of trespassers could not be applied. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr.