- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the appellate order of the Additional Collector, Kota dated 31. 7. 58 upholding the original order of the Tehsildar Ladpura dated 23. 6. 57 in a mutation case.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well A short and simple point is involved for determination in this case. The vendor belongs to a scheduled caste and the vendees who are the applicants before us do not belong to the scheduled castes. The applicants purchased the tenancy rights of the vendor and applied for mutation which was, however, rejected by the Tehsildar as being repugnant to the provisions contained in sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, The first appellate court upheld this decision. The validity of these decisions has been challenged before us on the ground that the provisions of sec. 42 have not been properly appreciated by the lower court. To appreciate the argument advanced before us we may reproduce this section which runs as below: - "sale or gift - Except with the general or special permission of the State Government no Khatedar tenant shall have right to transfer by sale or gift his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who at the date of such transfer is already in possession of land which together with the land so transferred will exceed ninety acres of unirrigated or thirty acres of irrigated land. Explanation.- If such land is partly irrigated and partly unirrigated, one acre of irrigated land shall, for calculating the area of land for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be equivalent to three acres of unirrigated land; Provided that no Khatedar tenant being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe shall so transfer his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. " The argument is that the proviso appearing at the end of the section should be applicable only to that case where sanction of the State Government has to be obtained by reason of the vendee having more than thirty acres of irrigated land. This is evidently a fallacious line of reasoning. Sec. 42 lays down two restrictions upon transfer by sale or gift. The first is that no Khatedar tenant shall transfer his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who at the date of such transfer is already in possession of land which together with the land so transferred will exceed 90 acres of unirrigated or 30 acres of irrigated land. The other is that no Khatedar tenant being a member of scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe shall transfer his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who is not a member of a schedule caste or a schedule tribe. The second restriction is intended to prevent the passing of tenancy rights of scheduled castes in the hands of non-scheduled castes. To accept the interpretation sought to be put upon this section by the learned counsel for the applicant would be to frustrate the very object behind this legislation. According to this interpretation this restriction should be applicable only where permission has to be taken from the State Government and in such a case if the vendor happens to be a scheduled caste member then alone the transfer should be in favour of a scheduled caste member only. This would naturally mean that the members of a scheduled caste would be free to transfer their interests in all other cases to non-scheduled castes and this would be a interpretation incon-sistent with the intention of the legislation. The section as it stands has to be interpreted in a reasonable manner. The first condition is intended to place restrictions on the acquisition of more land by sale or gift and a person who is already in possession of 90 acres of unirrigated or 30 acres of irrigated land cannot acquire more land by sale or gift except with the general or special permission of the State Government. The other restriction is of an entirely different nature and is intended to ensure the transfer of land from members of scheduled castes to members of scheduled castes only. There is thus no substance in the contention raised before us and the revision is hereby rejected. .;