G.L.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THROUGH this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner impugns the orders dated 3.6.1990 (Anx. 1), 28.4.1990 (Anx. 2) and 28.9.1995 (Anx. 3).
(2.) THE facts stated in the writ petition are that Akura Ram Meghwal was Gair Khatedar tenant of the land measuring 37.14 Bighas of land in village Rajasar, now Chak 5 M.D. He sold this land to one Naresh Chandra on 18.5.1963. Naresh Chandra in his turn sold this land to petitioner Babu Singh on 24.5.1970 by registered sale deed who is in possession of the land since then. The proceedings under Section 175 were initiated against the petitioner on 2.2.1974 but the Assistant Collector dismissed the application vide dated 22.9.1977 on the ground that the application was lime barred. Appeal taken against that order before the Revenue Appellate Authority was pending. During revenue campaign on 3.6.1989 Amari w/o Akuraram made an application before the Assistant Collector. Anoopgarh that the petitioner had been dispossessed of the land by force and the possession should be restored to her. It was found that Amari was a member of Scheduled Caste and therefore she or her husband could not sell the agricultural land to a person, who was not the member of Scheduled Caste and therefore the sale was void. The Assistant Collector vide order Ex. 1 directed the Tehsildar to dispossess Babu Singh (petitioner) and hand over possession of the land to Amari (respondent no. 6). This order was challenged by way of appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who vide order dated 28.4.1990 dismissed the appeal and a revision preferred under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was also dismissed by the Revenue Board vide its judgment dated 28.9.1995. The petitioner's case is that the order Anx. 1 was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and therefore the order Ex. 1 and the consequent orders Exs. 2 dt. 28.4.1990 and Ex. 3 dt. 28.9.1995 are liable to be quashed. It has been averred that the petitioner had been in continuous possession for a long period and therefore he has acquired title by adverse possession. In the reply respondents no. 1 to 5 have averred that the sale in favour of Naresh Chandra by Akura Ram was void under Section 42 of the Tenancy Act and as such subsequent sale by Naresh Chandra to the petitioner did not confer any legal right in the petitioner. It has been stated that since the sale was void no notice was required to be given to the petitioner.
(3.) I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.;