- (1.) The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely, Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were in possession of certain lands. By two documents, one dated 2.4.1964 and another dated 4.5.1964, they transferred these lands to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The original landholders Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were the members of the Scheduled Caste. The transferee under the two documents dated 2.4.1964 and 4.5.1964 were not the members of either the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Clause (b) of Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") says that a sale, gift or bequest by a member of a Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be void.
(2.) Based on this provision, the Tahsildar initiated action against the transferees under these two documents and it appears that the Revenue Inspector was instructed to take action and the transferees were dispossessed and on 17.1.1976, Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were put in possession. Thereafter, an application had been filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 22.11.1976 evidently under sub-sec. 4(A) of Sec. 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that the application filed on 22-11-1976 was beyond the period of limitation as it was made after a period of 12 years from the date of the execution of the two documents by Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram. The SDO noticed the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Receiver had taken possession of the land from Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram, so the Receiver was directed to handover the possession. This part of the order was challenged by the respondents before the Appellate Authority. The respondents thereafter filed a revision and an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue confirmed the order passed by the SDO and held that the action taken under Section 175 of the Act was beyond the period of limitation and the possession was directed to be given to the transferee. The appeal and revision were, thus, allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the writ petition before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the same. Hence these appeals by way of special leave.
(3.) We have heard the appellant's counsel and the counsel for the respondents.;