DAVE, C.J.—This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by Pandit Triveni Shyam Sharma and is directed against the decision of the learned Members of the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, dated the 13th June, 1961.

2. The facts giving rise to it are that the petitioner and one Gyarsia jointly filed a suit against Mangia and four others, for possession of Khasra No. 538 situated in village Thundi, tehsil Dausa. It was averred that plaintiff No. 2 Gyarsia, in that case, was a Khatedar tenant of the said Khasra No. 538 which was a grove-land having about forty mango trees and that he had transferred his Khatedari rights by sale to petitioner Triveni Shyam Sharma by a registered sale-deed dated 31st December, 1955. It was further stated that the vendor had delivered possession of the grove-land to the petitioner, that the defendants had without any right wrongfully dispossessed the petitioner from the said property and so, it was prayed that the possession of the property should be restored to him. The defendants contested the suit. One of the grounds raised by them before the Assistant Collector, Dausa, who tried the suit, was that Gyarsia was a member of a Scheduled Caste and that he could not transfer his Khatedari rights in favour of the petitioner since the latter was not a member of a Scheduled Caste. Reliance was placed on behalf of the defendants on the proviso to sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. No. 3 of 1955, which was added by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1956. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the said proviso could not affect the transaction, which had taken place on 31st December, 1955, retrospectively, but his objection was repelled by the Assistant Collector and it was observed that the Legislature had enacted it so as to have retrospective operation. It was, therefore, held that petitioner Triveni Shyam Sharma had no right to bring the suit and Issue No. 5, which related to this question, was decided against him. The Assistant Collector did not decide the dispute between Gyarsia and the defendants and, therefore, the suit continued between them. Aggrieved by the said decision dated the 30th January, 1960 the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Jaipur. In the appellate court, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the defendants were rank-trespassers and were not entitled to question the validity of the transaction. The validity of the transaction could only be questioned either by the transferor or by the Government. It was next urged that the proviso to sec. 42 which was added by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, could not come into play and affect the transaction which had taken place before the law was changed. The appellate court did not express its opinion about the first contention. Regarding the second contention, it relied upon Kishanlal Vs. Chhogalal (R. R. D. 1959, 155) and held that the proviso to sec. 42 could not affect the transaction retrospectively. It, therefore, allowed the appeal, quashed the order of the Assistant Collector and remanded the case with the direction that he should proceed with it on merits. Thereafter, the defendants, in the said case, filed a revision application against the decision of the Additional Commissioner dated 19th August, 1960. It was held by the learned Members of the Board that the said proviso to sec. 42 was provided by the Legislature to have retrospective effect. They, therefore, allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Assistant Collector. It is this order which is sought to be impugned by the petitioner.

3. Before we proceed to examine the arguments advanced in this Court by learned counsel on both the sides, it would be proper to narrate here the relevant changes made in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act No. 3 of 1955 which will hereinafter be referred as the Act. This Act was brought into for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document