A sale of land belonging to Scheduled Caste members in violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act does not confer khatedari rights through adverse possession.

ORDER :

1.This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.713/2005.

2. The facts as mentioned by the learned Single Judge in para No.2 of the writ petition are as under:-

“The brief facts are that the petitioner No.1— Anandi Lal and Devi Lal: father of petitioner No.2— Radhey Shyam purchased land comprising of khasra Nos.90 measuring 13 bigha 2 biswas, khasra No.261 measuring 1 bigha 2 biswas, khasra No.299 measuring 5 biswa, khasra No.378 measuring 1 bigha 13 biswas, khasra No.391 measuring 5 bighas, khasra No.124 measuring 8 bighas 18 biswas and khasra No.230 measuring 17 bighas 13 biswas in all 47 bighas 13 biswas situated in Village Hanuwant Kheda (hereinafter ‘land’) vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1965. The land was purchased from Mohana Son of Sukha (hereinafter referred to as ‘seller’) belonging to Scheduled Caste (for brevity ‘SC’). The petitioner No.1 claimed to be in cultivating possession of the land. The petition filed under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act of 1955’) seeking ejectment of petitioners for legal transfer or sub letting was dismissed on 19.09.1978 being not maintainable. The application filed under Section 183B of the Act of 1955 by son of seller for summary ejectment of the trespasser of the land held by a member of SC/ST category was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short ‘SDO’) vide order dated 22.01.1983. The Revenue Appellate Authority (‘RAA’) on 02.08.1986 set aside the order of the SDO and held that the petitioner No.1 was in adverse possession of the land for over twelve years. The revision filed against order of RAA was dismissed on 24.09.1993. The petitioners filed suit for declaring the petitioners to be khatedar of the land. The suit was dismissed on 20.05.1997. It was held that in revenue record the land was recorded in the name of son of the seller. The sale of land in the year 1965 was against the provision of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 and the petitioners had no right to claim khatedari of the land. The dismissal order was upheld by the RAA and by the Board of Revenue (hereafter ‘the Board’) vide orders dated 07.11.1998 and 18.03.1999 respectively. The review filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Board on 27.10.2004. Hence, the present writ petition.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that before the learned Trial Court, the appellants challenged the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 22.01.1983, Revenue Appellate Authority dated 02.08.1986 and the Board of Revenue dated 07.11.1998 & 18.03.1999 and case of the appellants was that the appellants were in adverse possession of the land in dispute, therefore, all three Authorities have failed to consider the issue of adverse possession. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has ignored the aspect regarding res-judicata as in another proceedings the same issue of res-judicata has attained finality.

4. We have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Admittedly, the appellants have purchased the land in dispute from a person who belongs to scheduled caste category and before the First Revenue Court, the appellants claimed the possession over the land on account of sale deed as well as adverse possession.

6. All the Revenue Courts rejected the case of the appellants on the ground that the sale deed is hit by Section 42B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act of 1955”). The issue involved in this appeal has already been considered by the various Courts including Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been held by the learned Single Judge in para No.5 & 7 of the judgment dated 03.02.2025, which reads as under:-

5. The issue involved in the present case is whether the khatedari rights on the basis of adverse possession can be claimed over the land belonging to SC/ST category, purchased in violation o