D.L MEHTA, J.—The petitioner purchased the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.2 Min. measuring 26 bighas 9 biswas situate in village Hathnapur from Chittar and Kalu sons of Chhagna Meena resident of Hathnapur vide registered sale deed dated March 24, 1969 for valuable consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. This fact has been mentioned by the petitioner in para 2 of the writ petition. He has further submitted that the land was purchased on Chait Badi 4, Samvat 2010 from Chhagna, the father of Kalu and Chittar by way of sale for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. The petitioner has produced Annexure-2 the document which is on a plain paper and there is a reference that the sale was made for the sum of Rs. 4,000-. ft has also been shown that it bears the thumb impression of Chhagna. The sale-deed dated March 24, 1969 was produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments In the sale deed dated March 24, 1969, there is no reference of the previous sale alleged to have taken place on Chait Badi 4, Samvat 2010. A bare perusal of the document Annexure-2 and the sale deed dt March 24, 1969 shown that vide Annexure-2 it is alleged that Chhagna has sold the land in the sum of Rs. 4,000/- but vide the registered sale deed dated March 24, 1969, it is alleged that Chittar and Kalu sons of Chhagna have sold the land for a valuable consideration of Rs. 8,000/-. Thus, there is inconsistency in the amount as well as about the persons who sold the land. It is also very relevant fact that there is no reference in the sale deed dated March 24, 1969 about the alleged sale effected on Chait Badi 4, Samvat 2010.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully perused the writ petition, Annexures thereof and the sale deed dated March 24, 1969.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order (Annexure-1) dated June 28, 1976 of the Assistant Collector, Bundi and the Judgment (Annexure-3) dated January 25, 1983 of the Board of Revenue. His main contention is that the authorities have not applied the law in a proper way. It is an admitted position that the sellers in Annexure-2 and the sale deed dated March 24, 19(59 are the members of the Scheduled Tribes. The material portion of s.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act) is as follows:

"42. General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest: The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his

holding shall be void, if

(a)............ .........

(b) Such sale, gift or bequest is by a member or Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of the Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe."

It is a settled law that if the sale is effected by a member of the Scheduled Tribe or Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who does not belong to that class, the sale shall be void. I do not find any infirmity in the judgments of the courts below. However, it will be useful here to discuss the relevant provisions of law.

4. S. 175 of the Act provides for ejectment for illegal transfer or subletting. This section provides a remedy to the landholder including the State in case of land held directly from the State Government in case of transfer or sub-letting which is against the any provisions of this Act. In order to make this section applicable, the following conditions must be satisfied:

(i) the transfer or sub-letting must be otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act;

(ii) the tenant must have transferred or sub-let the whole or a portion of his holding;

(iii) the transfere or sub-tenant must have entered upon or be in possession of the holding in pursuance of such transfer or sub-lease.

The restriction on sale, gift and bequest are given in s. 42 of the Act. The sale in violation of s.42 of the Act by a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe to the persons who are not members of the scheduled caste or scheduled t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document