M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the orders dated 17.10.1994 passed by the Collector, Bharatpur, 14.12.2012 & 25.04.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue.
(2.) OUT of three orders under challenge, order dated 17th October, 1994 was passed by the Collector, Bharatpur to refer the case to Board of Revenue. The other two orders were passed by the Board of Revenue on reference and review. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submits that impugned orders have been passed in ignorance of the fact that a suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner/s by the SDO Court followed by dismissal of appeal by the Revenue Appellate Authority in the hands of the private respondent/s. The reference of case on account of decree passed by the SDO Court and acceptance of it by the Board of Revenue was without considering that the order of the SDO Court merged in the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, thus no reference was either permissible or made against the order of Revenue Appellate Authority. In view of above, the reference so as its answer by the Board of Revenue, are illegal.
(3.) I have considered the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/s to challenge the order of reference so as the order passed by the Board of Revenue. The reference of case by the Collector is in view of sale of land from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidate to a general caste candidate in violation of Section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short "Act of 1955"). As per Section 42 of the Act of 1955, any sale, gift and bequest from SC and ST candidate to other caste candidate is void. Learned counsel submits that no sale, gift or bequest took place so as to refer Section 42 of the Act of 1955. In fact, transfer of rights are in pursuance of the compromise decree passed by the SDO Court and up -held by the Revenue Appellate Authority.;