A sale transaction of agricultural land between a Schedule Caste person and a non-Schedule Caste person is valid if the sale transaction took place prior to the enactment of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

1. - Petitioner had purchased agricultural land comprising in Khasra No. 649 admeasuring 4 Bighas and 2 Biswas and in Khasra No. 651 admeasuring 6 Bighas and 18 Biswas situate at Village-Panmodi, Tehsil-Pratapgarh, from Nathu and Nanu by caste-Chamar in S.Y. 2007. Mutation of this land was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the entry to that effect was made vide Ex. 1 in the year 1957 by the then Tehsildar Pratapgarh. On December 16, 1977 the then Tehsildar made a report to the Additional Collector, Chittorgarh that the purchase of land by Ratan Lal was from the members of the Schedule Caste and was as such in violation of section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The Additional Collector found force in the report and after issuing notices to the vendors and vendee and hearing Ratan Lal, opined that the Tehsildar had committed error in mutating land in the name of Ratan Lal on the basis of possession since S.Y. 2007. That, the transaction, even if any, was in violation of the specific provision in Section 42 of the Act. As such, the Additional Collector vide Ex. 2 dated December 16,1977 made a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the mutation in the name of Ratan Lal and vesting the land in the state and handing over its possession to it. The Board of Revenue while deciding the two references, one of which relates to the matter referred to above, agreed with the opinion of the Additional Collector and held that there being restriction for selling land by a member of Schedule Caste to a non- schedule caste person, the transaction was illegal and as such the mutation on basis of possession prior to the enforcement of the Act could not have been made. In view of that conclusion the learned member of the Board vide order Ex.3 dated June 5,1979 set aside the mutation in the name of petitioner Ratan Lal. Ratan Lal filed a review petition on the ground that the land was purchased by him much before the enactment of the Act and therefore, mutation by delay would not affect his right. The review petition was dismissed vide order Ex.4. dated January 7, 1981. Feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid proceedings and the orders, petitioner Ratan Lal has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for quashing of the orders of Reference Ex.2 dated December 16, 1977, the order passed by the Board of Revenue Ex.3 dated June 5, 1979 allowing the Reference and the order Ex. 4 dated January 7,1981 dismissing the review petition.

2. There is no dispute on the point that the land in dispute was purchased by Ratan Lal, a non-Schedule caste person from Schedule caste persons. The mutation being sanctioned and made on May 28, 1957 vide Ex. 1 is also not disputed. The pertinent question calling for answer is whether the then Tehsildar was in error in allowing mutation in the name of the petitioner after Section 42 of the Act coming into force in the year 1956. Section 42 of the Act prohibited sale transaction of agricultural land between a schedule caste person and a non - scheduled caste person. This section subsequently underwent further change in the year 1964 and such a transaction was made void abinitio. Presently we are only concerned with the position of law as it stood in the year 1957 when the land was mutated in favour of Ratan Lal. Even at that time there was restriction on such a transaction and in case the transaction is in the year of mutation, then the mutation order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand if the sale transaction was prior to the enactment of Section 42 and in pursuance of such a transaction Ratan Lal was put in possession of the land, then the mutation would not be taken to be simply on the basis of possession, rather it would be in pursuance of sale transaction prior to Section 42 of the Act being inserted in the Act.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he ha