He further held that the sale deed dated 12.01.1962 was void being in companytravention of Section 42 of the Act and, therefore, companysequent mutation was illegal.
The appellant vendees subsequently filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.639 of 1996 challenging order dated 19.10.1994 passed by the Additional Collector order dated 26.06.1995 passed by the Single Member of the Board of Revenue and order dated 16.11.1995 passed by the Division Bench of Board of Revenue.
Against the aforesaid order dated 26.06.1995, the Vendees filed Special Appeal No.1A/95RLAct Jaipur before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue.
The said land was sold by its recorded Khatedar, Dalu hereinafter referred to as the vendor to Ram Karan since deceased and Mahendra Kumar who belong to upper caste vide a registered sale deed dated 12th January, 1962.
Subsequently, Gram Panchayat allowed the land to be mutated in the name of the vendee, Ram Karan and Mahendra Kumar.
The same was registered as Reference No.261/94/LR Jaipur of 1994.
The said vendees had been in cultivator possession of the disputed land prior to 12th January, 1962.
In reply to the numberice on reference the appellant vendee stated that the sale deed executed on 12.01.1962 by Dalu is number in breach of Section 42 of the Act.
The Division Bench of the Board of Revenue by order dated 16.11.1995 affirmed the order of the Single Member and dismissed the appeal.
By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the order dated 23rd May, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.639 of 1996.
The Revenue Appellate Authority by order dated 28th January, 1994 held that in order to effectuate the social objective u s 42 of the Act, the State Government has enhanced the time for instituting suit u s 175 so that old cases of sale may be reopened.
The First Additional Collector vide his order dated 19.10.1994 directed to place the matter before the Board of Revenue for passing orders to cancel the mutation in favour of the vendee and held that the transfer was in breach of Section 42 of the Act and there was numberlimitation for a reference to the Board.
It was further held that a pending application for ejectment u s 175 of the Act is numberbar to a reference.
The Tehsildar also moved an application u s 112 of the Act for appointment of a receiver.
The ground taken was that the sale deed executed by the vendor, Dalu was in companytravention of provisions of Section 42 of the Act.
During the pendency of the proceedings u s 175 of the Act, the Tehsildar filed a reference under Rule 82 of the Land Record Rules before 1st Additional Collector, Viratnagar, District Jaipur seeking cancellation of the mutation dated 10.09.1963.
Against the aforesaid order dated 1.1.1994, the Tehsildar filed an appeal before Revenue Appellate Authority and the same was registered as Appeal No.9 of 1994.
Against the aforesaid order dated 23.05.2002, the vendee preferred B. Special Appeal Writ No.557 of 2002.
The Assistant Collector by order dated 1.1.1994 rejected the application made by Tehsildar for appointment of receiver to take possession of the suit land.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 23.05.2002 dismissed the writ petition and held that as the sale deed was executed in violation of Section 42 of the Act, the dismissal of application u s 175 of the Act does number create any right in favour of the vendees.
The Vendee, Ram Karan and Mahendra, challenged the aforesaid order dated 28.4.1994 in revision before the Board of Revenue which remain pending.
It was mutated on 10th September, 1966 and they became Khatedar.
After lapse of more than 31 years, Tehsildar, Viratnagar, District Jaipur, instituted Case No.1681/1993 before the Assistant Collector, Shahpura, District Jaipur, u s 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the, Act seeking ejectment of the vendee.
He held that the vendee had been in possession and cultivating the suit land for 32 years and had otherwise matured rights by adverse possession.
On 26.06.1995, the Single Member, Board of Revenue held that the vendor, Dalu being Nayak by caste was from Scheduled Caste category and the sale deed executed being in favour of General category person, the mutation carried out on the basis of said sale deed was null and void.
The companytention was that the sale was void being in companytravention of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as, the Act .
The said suit was filed on the ground that the vendorDalu belonged to a Scheduled Caste category Nayak and companysequently the disputed land companyld number be sold to the vendees who belonged to an upper caste of Mahajan.
The Member, Board of Revenue set aside the sanction for mutation granted by the Gram Panchayat and directed striking off the names of the vendees, Ram Karan and Mahendra and in their place the name of the vendor heirs was directed to be recorded.
He further held that there was numberprima facie case in favour of the State and also the balance of companyvenience was in favour of the vendee.
It was, inter alia, companytended that the proceedings u s 175 of the Act was pending and companysequently the reference was liable to be dismissed as the same was number maintainable.
The Tehsildar was appointed as receiver of the said land having Khasra number.2307, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2311, 2318, 2326, 2327, 2328 total 9 Tulka 25 hectares.
Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.557/2002.
The factual matrix of the case is as follows The suit property is an agricultural land admeasuring 10 bighas 13 biswa situated in village Med, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Ram Karan and Mahendra Kumar hereinafter referred to as the vendee were both landless persons on the date of sale of disputed land.
