2015 Supreme(Raj) 353

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J.
Vidhyadhar Sunda – Appellant
vs.
State & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.362/2001
Decided on : 13-5-2015

Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 prohibits transfer of agricultural land by members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in favour of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons only by sale, gift or bequest, none of which was done in the present case. Provisions of Section 42, therefore, could not be invoked in a case where rights have been determined in a declaratory suit, as held by this court in Lad Bai & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue-1999 DNJ (Raj) 761.

Headnote:

Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 prohibits transfer of agricultural land by members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in favour of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons only by sale, gift or bequest, none of which was done in the present case. Provisions of Section 42, therefore, could not be invoked in a case where rights have been determined in a declaratory suit, as held by this court in Lad Bai & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue-1999 DNJ (Raj) 761.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Vidhyadhar Sunda, challenged two orders passed by the District Collector both dated 20.9.2000 (Annexure-8 and 11). By first order, Collector, Sikar has allowed the application filed by respondent nos.4 to 16 herein and made a reference to the Board of Revenue, Ajmer for setting aside judgment and decree dated 19.10.1981 passed in revenue suit no.274/1981 titled Vidhyadhar vs. Noparam & Ors. and cancelling the mutation no.258 and again recording the land in dispute in the khatedari of Noparam Nayak and Nolaram Balai, holding that mutation of the land of person belonging to Scheduled Caste was wrongly attested in favour of a person of general category in breach of Section 42(b) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. By second order, Collector Sikar has allowed the application u/s.82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 filed by the State through Telsildar, Sikar for cancelling the mutation no.258 attested by Tehsildar, Sikar in respect of the land of Village Samarthpura and for recording the said lands again in the khatedari of Noparam Nayak and Nolaram Balai, members of the Scheduled Caste. The petitioner has also challenged the order of Board of Revenue dated 5.1.2001 (Annexure-13) whereby reference in both the aforesaid cases was accepted and the mutation no.258 attested in favour of the petitioner, referred to supra, was cancelled and the land in dispute was again ordered to be recorded in the khatedari of Noparam and Nolaram Balai.

Finding of the Court:

The Board of Revenue has erred in law in holding that the decree dated 19.10.1981 has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 42 prohibits transfer of agricultural land by members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in favour of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons only by sale, gift or bequest, none of which was done in the present case. Provisions of Section 42, therefore, could not be invoked in a case where rights have been determined in a declaratory suit, as held by this court in Lad Bai & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue-1999 DNJ (Raj) 761.

Issues: Whether the Board of Revenue erred in law in holding that the decree dated 19.10.1981 has been passed in violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 prohibit transfer of agricultural land by members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in favour of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons only by sale, gift or bequest. In the present case, the transfer of land was not made by sale, gift or bequest, but by a declaratory suit. Therefore, the provisions of Section 42 could not be invoked.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. However, the SDO, Sikar is directed to resolve the dispute effectively as to the exact number of khasras, which are in possession of and are claimed by various parties and decide the revenue suit pending for last twenty five years, which is now being prosecuted by legal heirs of Toda, Mala and Goru, within a maximum period of one year. The SDO shall for that purpose not entertain any interlocutory application that may be filed to stall or delay the proceedings in the peculiar nature of this case. The fresh file may be reconstituted on necessary documents being submitted by all the concerned parties and thereafter the evidence of the parties may be recorded, without granting any undue or longer adjournments. The proceedings of the suit may be conducted in such a way so as to conclude the same and pass final order within a period of one year from the date copy of this order is produced before him.