Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-State aggrieved against the judgment dated 24.01.2002 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('the Board'), whereby the reference made by it under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 ('the LR Act') has been rejected.

2. The State by the reference had questioned the validity of mutation No.62 dated 11.08.1995 and auction sale conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jalore.

3. The non-petitioner No. 1 Uka was recorded Khatedar of the land in question; the land was mortgaged with the Land Development Bank, Branch Raniwada; the Bank issued a demand notice to the respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.13,075/- and when he failed to deposit the sum, a proclamation for sale was issued and the land in question was sold in auction, which was purchased by respondent No.2 Manoj Kumar for a consideration of Rs.44,501/-. After payment of the said amount, the land in question was redeemed from mortgage and mutation No.62 dated 11.08.1995 was recorded in the name of respondent No.2.

4. The State through Tehsildar filed an application before the District Collector, Jalore on 21.07.1998, inter alia, indicating that the respondent No.2 Manoj Kumar is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, whereas the respondent No.1 Uka is a member of Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the land in question could not be transferred in favour of respondent No.2 in view of the provisions of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Tenancy Act').

5. The Board after hearing the State, as the respondents did not appear, dismissed the reference, inter alia, holding as under:-

"11. In view of the fore-going discussions, it is not established that the non petitioner No.1, who is a member of scheduled tribe, has transferred his agriculture land to a person who is not a member of scheduled tribe, but on the other hand, non petitioner No.2 has purchased the land in question in public auction which was not a voluntary act of the non petitioner No. 1. Therefore, this reference is not maintainable and it is hereby dismissed."

6. Feeling aggrieved, the State filed the present writ petition. Initially, the writ petition was dismissed in limine on 14.05.2002. The State filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.158/2004. During pendency of the said Special Appeal, a reference was made to the Larger Bench regarding the validity of the judgment of this Court in Asuram v. Tehsildar, Sanchore : AIR 2000 Raj. 345.

7. The reference was answered on 10.05.2010 and the Division Bench by its order dated 13.12.2010 has remanded back the matter.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the issue raised in the present writ petition is now squarely covered by Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Uka & Ors. : 2010(2) RRT 738, and therefore the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the proceedings for reference were initiated belatedly and, therefore, the same were rightly rejected by the Board; the auction proceedings are governed by provisions of Section 14(1) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 ('the Act') and the full Bench judgment deals with the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act and, therefore, the same is not applicable. It was prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner-State.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. The Board rejected the reference on coming to the conclusion that the transfer of the land in the present case was not effected by provisions of Section 42(b) of the Tenancy Act, inasmuch as, the transfer was not a voluntary act of respondent No.1 as the land in question was attached and put to auction by the Land De