G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) WOULD the Stay order again deprive the Chamars of land and make them landless by judicial process? Should the stay order be vacated, is the sole controversy in this land reforms litigation ?
(2.) IN this case, the principal submission of Shri Pareek who is objecting the grant of stay is that under S. 42 and46 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, there is blanket prohibition and mandatory restriction on transfer of land by Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe to non-S. C. either by sub-letting or by mortgage or by sale and this Court in Ballu Vs. Birda (1) has held that even a decree by compromise in respect of such land would be a nullity and honest. Shri Pareek submits that all the three court below have held in favour of the defendants who are the members of the S. C. being Chamar and, therefore, they should not be deprived of the possession. Shri Dave, on the contrary, submits that this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case has granted ad-interim stay order and his clients are in possession and, therefore, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to dispossess them during the pendency of the writ petition. Shri Dave also pointed out that earlier, after the compromise decree, an appeal was filed but the appellate court held that there was no fraud in the compromise. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that prima facie, the findings of the three courts-below that the defendants are members of the Scheduled Caste being Chamars and, therefore, the provisions of Sections 42 and 46a of the Tenancy Act apply, requires due weight even at the stage of the stay matter Admittedly, the defendants are of Scheduled Caste and weaker sections and the intention of the legislature in enacting section 42 and 46 A of the Tenancy Act is to be kept in view. Without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case. 1 am of the opinion that the defendants who are Chemars should not be deprived of the benefit of getting possession. I have held in Ballu Vs. Birda (supra) as under- "in my opinion, the provisions of Section 42 have been enacted for prohibiting transfer of agricultural land from scheduled Caste to non-Sched-uled Caste on the ground that Schedule Case and Scheduled Tribe are the weaker sections of the society and if protection is not given, the affluent members of the society would EXPLOIT them. This is socio-economic legislation to ameliorate the condition of down trodden, depressed and suppressed segment of society, who are weaker financially, economically, socially and also in education. It is, therefore, necessary that broad, liberal interpretation should be made to the word, 'transfer' used in this proviso and all direct or indirect methods of transferring property should be considered to be hit by the prohibition, contained in section 42. In that context and background, the sale or bequest would be void. The parties manipulate compromises in Civil suits and Revenue suits and both the parties want to change the property from one person to other person. Can it not be said that it was a transfer for the purpose of section 42 as surrender can only be made under section 55 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Broadly, speaking, I am of the opinion that the word, 'transfer, used in the proviso to section 42 should be treated as comprehensive and even if an agricultural land in Khatedari of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, by a compromise in a suit, then also it would come within the mischief of prohibited transfer under S. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Even a contested decree resulting in transfer would be covered by the protective Umbrella of S. 42 of the Act. "
(3.) DEPRIVING weaker section of possession and making them landless by process of litigation, would be doing violence to socio-economic land reforms laws Stay order would result in making them landless. In view of this, stay application is dismissed and the ad-interim stay order dated the 13. 5. 1972 is vacated. The hearing of the writ petition may be expedited. .;