IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the sale of property from a 'Scheduled Caste' person to a person not belonging to the 'Scheduled Caste' category is void-ab-initio under Section 42 (b) of the Act of 1955, and that failure to raise objections at the appropriate stage may result in waiving the right to do so.

ORDER :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order, or direction:

(i) The order dated 23.02.2017 (Annex.4), passed by the Learned SDM, Kolayat, Bikaner; order dated 03.04.2017 (Annex.6), passed by the Learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner and the order dated 16.11.2023 (Annex.9) passed by the Learned Board of Revenue, Ajmer, may kindly be set aside.

(ii) That the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Annex.1), may kindly be dismissed.

(iii) Any other order favorable to the Petitioners may also be passed.

(iv) Cost of the writ petition may be awarded.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-State filed a suit against the petitioner under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1955’) for ejectment of the petitioner from the property in question. The property in question was originally allotted to one Faujiya S/o Manaram Nayak, who belonged to a ‘Scheduled Caste’ category. Thereafter, Faujiya, by way of a sale deed dated 21.08.1983, sold the property in question to one Setharam, who did not belong to the ‘Scheduled Caste’ category. The revenue entry No. 1963 dated 21.08.1983 was entered into the revenue record accordingly. Thereafter, Setharam, further sold the said property in question to the petitioner on 28.09.2001 for which, the revenue entry No. 2807 dated 29.11.2001 was made.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kolayat, District Bikaner, dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 29.12.2016 (Annexure-3).

4. Thereafter, the suit filed by the respondent-State came to be allowed vide order dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-4). The petitioner being aggrieved of the decree dated 23.02.2017 (Annexure-4), preferred an appeal under Section 223 of the Act of 1955 before the Revenue Appellate Authority (RAA), Bikaner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure-6).

5. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 03.04.2017 (Annexure-6), preferred the second appeal before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer, under Section 224 of the Act of 1955, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-8).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that:

(a) All the revenue courts have failed to adjudicate the matter on the ground raised by the petitioner as the suit was barred by limitation. As per Section 214 of the Act of 1955, every suit specified in the Third Schedule ought to be filed within a period of 30 years as prescribed under the Schedule.

(b) Though, initially, the property in dispute vested with one Shri Faujiya belonging to ‘Scheduled Caste’ category, who sold the property to one Setharam and Setharam further sold the said property to the petitioner on 28.09.2001 and therefore, the petitioner could not have been ejected from the said property based on the fact that the property vested with the person belonged to ‘Scheduled Caste’ category.

(c) The suit has not been adjudicated by the revenue courts, on the point that it is barred by limitation and therefore, the matter ought to be remanded back to the revenue courts in order to adjudicate the issue of limitation.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as perused the material available on record.

7. It is seen from the orders passed by the revenue courts that the revenue courts, after examining all the documents and record placed before it, has held that the property in dispute being an agricultural property belonging to a ‘Scheduled Caste’ person, could not