The period of limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is 12 years, as prescribed under the Third Schedule of the Act. A reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 232 of the Act must be made within this period of limitation.

1. - The present writ petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.10.1996 passed by the Board of Revenue under Reference/TA/22/96, Pali whereby the reference made by the Additional Collector, Pali vide his order dated 18.2.1983 passed in reference under the provisions of Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was accepted and the mutation of the disputed land entered in the name of the petitioner vide mutation entry No.31/1957 was cancelled.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his father late Shri Mool Singh and one Shri Badri, were recorded khatedar of the land ad measuring 48 bighas 12 biswas comprising khasra no.200 and 202 situated in village-Gendhari, Tehsil-Desuri, District Pali, even before resumption of Jagirs and coming into force of Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955 w.e.f. 15.10.1955. The co-tenant Badri surrendered his share in the land in favour of the petitioner's father late Shri Mool Singh and thereafter, the land was mutated in his name vide mutation entry No.31 of 1957. It is alleged that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner's father under section 175 of the Act of 1955 on the ground that transfer of the land made by Badri, a member of Scheduled Caste, in his favour is hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955, however, the proceedings initiated being barred by limitation stood terminated in favour of the petitioner's father. Thereafter, on the report being submitted by the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Bali, the Additional Collector, Pali, vide order dated 18.2.83 passed in Reference Case No.450/81, referred the matter for cancellation of the mutation to the Board of Revenue under Section 232 of the Act of 1955. The reference has been accepted by the Board of Revenue holding that the land could not have been surrendered by Badri in favour of the petitioner's father and that apart, the transfer was made in violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act is invalid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that Shri Badri surrendered his share in favour of late Shri Mool Singh in the year 1957. The name of late Shri Mool Singh - father of the petitioner was entered in accordance with law vide mutation entry No.31 of 1957. The revenue authorities raised objection that mutation in favour of the petitioner's father was invalid being in violation of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 as late Shri Badri was a member of Scheduled Caste. The said objection was raised in 1983. However, the proceedings were terminated in favour of the petitioner's father on the basis of limitation and the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 were dropped in 1983. At the same time, the respondent No.4 also initiated the proceedings by way of reference before respondent No.3. The respondent No.3 by order dated 18.2.1983 referred the matter to the respondent No.2 for cancellation of the mutation entered in the year 1957. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 26.10.1996 too accepted the reference and ordered for cancellation of mutation no.31 of 1957 in spite of the fact that the proceedings under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 had been dropped on account of limitation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very proceedings are barred by limitation and were not maintainable after a delay of almost 15 years from the date of expiry of limitation period which in itself was 12 years. As per Section 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the period of limitation as prescribed for initiating the proceedings under Section 175 is 12 years. Section 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act reads as under:-

214. Limitation in cases under this Act -(1) The suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be instituted and made within the time prescribed therein for them and every such suit instituted or application made after the expiry of the period of limitation so prescribed shall be dismissed.

Provided that any such suit or application, for which the period prescribed by