- (1.) The intra-court appeal has been preferred questioning the legality of the order dated 23rd May, 2002 passed by the Single Bench dismissing the writ application.
(2.) The appellants-petitioners have questioned the order passed by the Board of Revenue on a reference made by the Addl.Collector cancelling mutation which was made in favour of the appellants-petitioners on the strength of sale deed dated 12.1.1962 of the area 10 bighas 13 biswas purchased from Dalu, who was member of Scheduled Caste category. Mutation was carried out by Gram Panchayat on 10.9.1963. When the Additional Collector, Jaipur came to know that Dalu was member of Scheduled Caste category and has transferred the land in favour of general category person and such transaction was found to be void under section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "the Tenancy Act"), he made a reference on 19th October, 1994 to cancel the mutation. The reference was made to the Board of Revenue, which was accepted vide order dated 26.6.1995. Against the said order, special appeal was preferred before the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16.11.1995. Hence, writ petition was filed before the Single Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed. Consequently, the intra-court appeal has been preferred.
(3.) The Single Bench has dismissed the writ application on the ground that Dalu was member of Scheduled Caste category and as per provisions of Section 42 of the Tenancy Act, member of Scheduled Caste category can sale the land to member of Schedule Caste category only and not to the person of general category and thus, in view of the provisions of Section 42, the sale made by Dalu in favour of petitioners, members of general category, was void. The order passed by the Board of revenue has been upheld. The ground of delay that reference was made after 30 years of mutation, has not been accepted as no right whatsoever has been created in favour of the petitioners. Mutation proceedings are fiscal in nature and do not create any right in favour of any person. Dismissal of the application under section 175 of the Tenancy Act, which was initiated by Tehsildar, did not create any right in favour of the petitioners in view of the provisions contained in Section 42 of the Tenancy Act.;