[2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 150/2020 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6496/2019 1. Bhagwan Sahay S/o Ramchandra 2. Gopal S/o Ramchandra 3. Lala Ram S/o Ramchandra 4. Babulal S/o Ramchandra 5. Pradhan S/o Bhanwar Lal All residents of village Hasampura, post Bhakrota, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur 6. Smt. Premdevi D/o Ramchandra W/o Ganesh Narayan, R/o Village Hasampura Presently Barkakheda, Post Bagru, Tehsil Sanganer. 7. Smt. Meera Devi D/o Ramchandra, R/o Hasampura, Presently Bisanwala, Bunkar Colony, Sirasi Road, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. State Govt. Through Tehsildar, Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Premlata D/o Sanwat Ram Meena, Resident Of Plot No. 41, Ajmer Road, Gopalbadi, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Girija Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat and Mr. Aditya Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Madhusudhan Rajpurohit, Ms. Alankrita Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Kall, Mr. Harshil Bansal and Ms. Nimisha Danga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Judgment [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (2 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 10.02.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 10.02.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 07.07.2026 Per, Justice Ravi Chirania:- Reportable 1. The appellant-petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as ‘petitioners’, for short) fall in the Scheduled Caste category (hereinafter to be referred as ‘SC category’, for short) in the State of Rajasthan (by caste ‘Balai’) have filed the instant Special Appeal (Writ) bearing No.150/2020 to challenge the impugned judgment dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6496/2019 filed by the petitioners was dismissed and orders passed by the learned Board of Revenue (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BoR’, for short) were affirmed. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N.K. Maloo assisted by Mr. Girija Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Ajay Singh Rajawat and Mr. Aditya Goyal, appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Single Judge committed serious mistake by not appreciating and considering the facts of the case, the serious issues involved and the legal grounds as raised by them in the writ petition while deciding by the impugned order dated 12.12.2019. He submitted that the issue involved in this case is in respect of illegal purchase and transfer of land belonging to a person of SC category by a non-SC category person which is void ab initio in terms of Section 42(b) of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Act of 1955’, for short). He submitted that the writ petition was filed with the following prayer:- [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (3 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned orders dated 26-09-2018 (annexure-7), 28-09-2018 (annexure-8) and 14-01-2019 (annexure-11) passed by the learned S.B of the Board of Revenue may kindly be set aside and the Reference /LR/2094/2017/ Jaipur filed before the Board by Collector Jaipur may kindly be allowed, and the mutation order dated 03-10-1975 passed by Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Bhakrota in mutation no.212 (annexure-1) may kindly be set aside. Any other appropriate order which may be found just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.” 3. The brief facts, as informed by learned Senior Counsel, are that the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are sons; Nos.6 and 7 are daughters and No.5 is the grandson of the recorded Khatedar Late Ramchandra, of agricultural land bearing Khasra No.585/1, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593 and 594, admeasuring 15 Bighas and 10 Biswas, situated at Village Bhankrota, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. The aforesaid Khasra numbers were re- numbered as 916, 917, 918, 919, 920, 1166/2719 and 1167/2720. The original Khatedar, late Ramchandra, father of the above mentioned petitioners herein (sons and daughters), passed away in the year 2003. Upon his demise, the petitioners herein, being the legal heirs and successors, succeeded the land in question. They questioned the illegal purchase, after it came to their knowledge after death of father, of their land by the respondent No.2, who belongs to Scheduled Tribe category (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ST category’ for short), alleging [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (4 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] that the transaction had been secured by playing fraud, therefore, is illegal. 4. It was further contended that respondent No.2, Premlata, falsely claimed that she purchased the land in question, from Late Shri Ramchandra, the original khatedar, by registered sale deed dated 26.11.1973. The mutation of the land was sanctioned by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Bhankrota on 03.10.1975. After 1975, the respondent No.2 submitted an application dated 17.03.1990 (after 15 years) to Assistant Settlement Officer (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ASO’ for short)/ Land Record Inspector for issuance of Land Record Parcha. Upon examination/consideration of the said application dated 17.03.1990, the ASO in its order dated 20.03.1990 recorded that the mutation had been effected in violation of Rules, however, as he was not the competent authority to take further action in the matter, therefore, forwarded the case to the District Collector for necessary legal action. The order dated 20.03.1990 reads as under:- "i=koyh is'k gqà çkFkÊ mifLFkr çkFkÊ us ,d çkFkZuk i= bl vk'k; dk çLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k g fd jktLo foHkkx }kjk ukekrdj.k la[;k 212 fnukad 3@10@75 dks gks pqdk vksj jktLo tekcnh es Hkh bl dk vly gks pqdk gS fdUrq Hkw çcaèk foHkkx }kjk ijpk ugh fn;k x;k gS tks fnyk;k tkos A çkFkÊ us iqLrd esa rglhy dh jktLo tekcanh dh udy Hkh çLrqr djrs gq, rglhynkj lkaxkusj dks fjiksVZ Hkh çLrqr dh gS tks 'kkfey gks i=koyh ds gSA çLrqr i=kfn ,oa lEcfèkr vfHkys[k dk voyksdu djus ls çkFkÊ }kjk çLrqr rF; ;gh ik;s x;s rglhy }kjk vly cjken gksus ij Hkw çcaèk foHkkx esa vly u djus esa ;g foHkkx l{ke ugh gSA [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (5 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] vr%% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd jktLo vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj [kljk uecj 585 ls 594 jdck 15@2 xzke HkkadjksaVk rglhy lkaxkusj ij u;s vfHkys[k esa jktLo vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj bUækt fd;k tkos gktk fd mä~r ukekardj.k fu;eks ds foijhr gqvk Fkk fdUrq mldk vly Hkw çcaèk vfHkys[k esa u fd;k tkus ds fy, ;g foHkkx l{ke ugh gS ,oa lwpuk ftykèkh'k t;iqj dks vyx ls vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq fHktoknh tkos A tekcanh ¼ [krkSuh½ xzke HkkadjksVk iVookj ea.My HkkadjksdVk Hkwåeaåfuå gå lkaxkusj rgå lkaxkusaj ftyk t;iqj vkèkkj o"kZ tqykà 1989 ls 30 twu 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- tekcanh ¼[krkSuh½ xzke HkkadjksaVk iVokj ea.My HkkadjksVk Hkwåeåfuågå lkaxkusj rglhy ftyk t;iqj vkèkkj o"kZ tqykà 1989 ls 30 twu 2009 302 रामचन्द्र पुत्र नन्दा कोम बलाई सा०देह 516 0.55 चाही 519 917 0.68 द्वितीय - 918 0.03 0.92 515 आबादी 0.02 जाव - 919 चाह 2.07 द्वितीय 920 0.05 0.07 1166 0.04 चाही द्धितीय 2719 0.62 जाब द्वितीय 1167 जाव द्धितीय 0.06 2720 जाव द्धितीय गैर मुमद्विकन चाह चाही द्वितीय चाही द्वितीय चाही द्वितीय --------------------------------------------------------------- योग खाता 7 3.88 चाही द्धितीय जाव द्धितीय गै०मु [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (6 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 3.00 0.16 0.02 uksV %* iVokj ukekaå laå 292 ds vly dh feåuaå 703@90 fu.kZ; fnukad 20@3@90 ds vuqlkj o fely esa lyaXu ikl cqd tekcanh [kåuaå ij vkidh iVokj ukek 292@ 3@10@75 ds vuqlkj iwjs [kkrs ij jkepUn iq= uUnk ds ctk; çseyrk iq=h lkoyjke eh.kk fuoklh t;iqj dk uke le>k tkosA" 5. Learned senior counsel submitted that the ASO had raised a valid legal objection in time regarding the illegal mutation of land in question because the land was transferred from a person of SC category to a non-SC category person, i.e. ST category which was in violation of Rules. It was further argued that petitioners had no knowledge about the alleged illegal purchase even in the year 1990. However, it is only after the death of their father, Late Ramchandra in the year 2003, they came to know about the above transaction on 12.07.2007 and, thereafter, they moved an application on 16.08.2007 before Collector, Jaipur, when the Revenue Authorities intended to record the name of the respondent No.2 in the revenue record. 6. The petitioners filed an application dated 16.08.2007 before the District Collector, Jaipur pointing out the illegal purchase of land in question, in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 and requested to make a reference under Section 82 of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1956’ for short), for cancellation of the mutation order dated 03.10.1975 and cancellation of all consequential entries in the Revenue record. 7. Learned Senior Counsel specifically pointed out that, despite the fact that the ASO vide order dated 20.03.1990 forwarded the [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (7 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] case to the office of District Collector for necessary action, still no steps were taken by the authorities from the year 1990 till 2007, and even till today. Such inaction on the part of the revenue authorities is intentional and an indicative collusion with the respondent No.2 herein to grab the land of the petitioners. 8. It was further argued that on the application, as filed on 16.08.2007, the Collector, Jaipur registered the case as reference No. 133/2007 (new No.12/2012) titled as ‘Bhagwan Sahay & Ors. Vs. Smt. Premlata & Anr.’ The said reference thereafter, remained pending before Collector, Jaipur from the year 2007 to 2016, however, the Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur (to whom the reference was transferred), in its judgment dated 16.11.2016, specifically noted that the sale was in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, however, instead of deciding the reference, it further referred the same to learned BoR. The relevant paras of the order dated 16.11.2016 reads as under:- "¼5½ ;g fd vizkFkhZ }kjk vius tokc esa ;g Hkwfe tkxhj le; ls mlds firk dks vkaofVr fd;k tkuk voxr djk;k gSA bl lEcU/ k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqRk ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl lEcU/k esa dkbZ fopkj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼6½ vizkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds }kjk bl izdj.k esa ,d foØ; esa vuqcU/k fnukad 21-06-1962 fd;k tkuk voxr djk;k gSA fdUrq bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;s gSaA ;g Hkh fd fdlh Hkh O;fDr dks vuqcU/k i= ds vk/kkj ij dksà vf/kdkj mRiUu ugha gks ldrs gSaA ¼7½ bl izdj.k esa ;g Hkh jktLo fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj ,oa mHk; i+{k }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k rF; gS fd bl izdj.k esa fnukad 26-11- 1973 dks ,d fodz; i= iathc) djk;k x;k gS tks fd [kkrsnkj [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (8 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] jkepUnz iq= uUnk tkfr cykbZ ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr½ ls Jhefr izseyrk iq=h lkacyjke eh.kk ¼xSj vuqlwfpr tkfr½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds lnL; ds i+{k esa fd;k x;k gSA bl ds vk/kkj ij ukekUrj.k la[;k 212 fu.kZ; fnukad 03-10-1975 fodz; ntZ fd;k tkdj dzsrk ds i{k esa fuf.kZr fd;k x;k gSA ¼8½ ;g Hkh jktLo fjdkMZ esa ntZ fd;s x;s mDr ukekUrj.kdj.k ls Li"V gS fd bl dk;Zokgh ds fy, ntZ fd;s x;s ukekUrj.k la[;k 212 fu.kZ; fnukad 03-10-1975 ij lEcfU/kr iVokjh }kjk fVIi.kh dh xbZ gS fd **Jhekuth izkFkZuk gS fd ;g jdck jkepUnz cykbZ }kjk eh.kk tkfr dks fodz; gqvk gS] tehu ij dCtk o dk'r gks pqdk gS] mfpr dk;Zokgh ckn tkap ukekUrj.k Lohdkj djsa** rFkk bl ij tkap ds fy, Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd }kjk fVIi.kh dh xbZ gS fd **ukekUrj.k vkt okLrs tkap gsrq is'k gqvk exj ns[kus ls tkfgj gqvk fd ukekUrj.k --- ¼viB-½ voS/kkfud Hkjk x;k gS D;ksafd cykbZ tkfr ls cspku ls gksdj eh.kk tkfr esa Hkjk x;k gS] lks ukekUrj.k dkfcy [kkfjt gS**A iVokjh rFkk Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd dh Li"V fVIi.kh ds ckotwn LFkkuh; xzke iapky; ds ljiap ds }kjk ukekUrj.k Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS tks fd fof/k }kjk LFkkfir izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gS rFkk ;g ukekUrj.k [kkfjt ;ksX; gSA ¼9½ ;g fd bl ukekUrj.k ij lacaf/kr iVokjh ,oa Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; dh Hkwfe xSj vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; dks gLrkarj.k fd;s tkus dh Li"V fjiksVZ vafdr dh tkdj bls voS/kkfud gksus dh fjiksVZ dh xbZ FkhA fQj Hkh lacaf?kr ljiap xzke iapk;r HkkadjksVk ds }kjk bls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ;g dk;Zokgh jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vfèkfu;e 1955 dh èkkjk 42 ds çkoèkkuksa ds Li"V :i ls foijhr gSA rFkk ljiap dks ,slk ukekUrjdj.k Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ljiap }kjk bl ukekUrjdj.k dks Lohd`r fd;k tkuk ? kksj ,oa xEHkhj fof/k fo:) d`R; jgk gSA ¼10½ ;g fd fnukad 01-05-1964 ls izHkkoh jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 42¼ch½ esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS fd & **Section 42 – General restriction on sale, gift and bequest- The sale, gift or [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (9 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of holding shall be void, if: (a) deleted w.e.f. 11.11.1992 (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of a Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the scheduled caste, or by a member of a schedule tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the schedule tribe.** bl /kkjk esa Li"V gS fd ;fn vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; ds }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr ls vU;Fkk O;fDr dks fodz; vkfn fd;k tkrk gS rks og 'kwU; ¼Void½ gksxkA izLrqr izdj.k esa Hkwfe dk fodz; [kkrsnkj Jh jkepUnz iq= uUnk tkfr cykbZ ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr½ ls Jhefr iszeyrk iq=h lkaoyjke eh.kk ¼xSj vuqlwfpr tkfr½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds lnL; ds i{k esa fd;k x;k fodz; foys[k fnukad 26-11-1973 Li"V :i ls 'kwU; ¼Void½ gS rFkk blls dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrs gSaA bl fodz; foys[k ds vk/kkj ij ntZ fd;k x;k ukekurjdj.k la[;k 212 fu.kZ; fnukad 03-10-1975 voS/k ,oa yksd uhfr ds fo:) gksus ds dkj.k fujLruh; gSA mijksDr foospu ds vuqlkj iz'uxr Hkwfe ds lacaèk esa izLrqr ;g jsQjsUl Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vRk% jsQjsUl mfpr fu.kZ;kFkZ ekuuh; jktLo e.My] jktLFkku dks izsf"kr gksA fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 16-11-2016 dks ljs btykl lquk;k x;kA i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gks rFkk uEcj ls de gksA" 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the reference as made by the Additional Collector was registered before the learned BoR as Reference/LR/2094/2017/Jaipur titled as ‘State of Rajasthan through Tehsildar, Sanganer Vs. Smt. Premlata & Ors.’ It was informed by learned senior counsel that the Single Bench of the learned BoR vide its judgment dated 26.09.2018 decided the reference on a highly technical ground without properly appreciating the serious issue as involved, the facts as [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (10 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] mentioned and more specifically the provisions of law as noted and discussed by the learned Additional Collector (IV) in its judgment dated 16.11.2016, while dismissing the reference. It was also further argued that the important facts, as noted by the learned Additional Collector in its judgment dated 16.11.2016, were completely ignored and by adopting an illegal and highly technical approach, the reference was rejected. It was also pointed out that the learned BoR recorded that the reference had been filed after a lapse of more than 32 years and as no satisfactory justification for the delay had been furnished and, therefore, on the basis of alleged serious delay, the same had been rejected. The relevant paras of the impugned reference rejection order dated 26.09.2018 reads as under:- “geus nksuksa i{kks ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k dh cgl ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh ds voyksdu ,oa cgl dFku ls ;g Li"V gS fd fookfnr Hkwfe dk gLrkUrj.k iath—r foØ; i= fnukad 26-11- 73 ls fd;k x;k gS rFkk blds vkèkkj ij ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 212 fnukad 3- 10-75 dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA blds fo:) jsQjsUl fd;s tkus gsrq foØsrk jkepUæ ds okfjlku us o"kZ 2007 esa jsQjsUl çkFkZuk i= vèkhuLFk U;k;ky; esa çLrqr fd;k gSA bl çdkj vçkFkÊ la[;k 2 ls 8 us bl ukekUrjdj.k la[;k 212 ds fo:} yxHkx 32 o"kZ ckn jsQjsUl fd;s tkus gsrq çkFkZuki= çLrqr fd;k x;k gSA gkykafd jsQjsUl gsrq dksà le; lhek fuèkkZfjr dh gqà ugÈ gSA ijUrq tk;s bldk vk'k; ;g ugÈ gS fd vR;fèkd foyEc ls vFkkZr 32 o"kZ dh vR;fèkd nsjh ds ckn jsQjsUl fd;k tkosA bl lacaèk esa fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd vçkFkÊ la[;k 1 dh vksj ls çLrqr U;kf;d –"VkUr vkj-vkj-Vh- 2017 ¼2½ ist 1136 esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ;g fl)kUr çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd èkkjk 42- ¼ch½ jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vfèkfu;e ls gLrkUrj.k [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (11 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] okbM gksus ls ckfèkr gS ,oa èkkjk 175 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vfèkfu;e dh le; lhek lekIr gks pqdh gS ftlls jsQjsUl e;kn ls ckfèkr gS ,oa vR;fèkd foyEc ls çLrqr fd;s tkus ls [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA mä U;kf;d –"VkUr ds rF; orZeku çdj.k ds leku gh gSa rFkk orZeku çdj.k esa Hkh èkkjk 175 jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vfèkfu;e dh vofèk lekIr gks pqdh gS rFkk jsQjsUl 32 o"kZ ls Hkh vfèkd nsjh ls çLrqr fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vR;fèkd nsjh ls çLrqr jsQjsUl pyus ;ksX; ugÈ gSA vkj-vkj-Vh- 2014 ¼2½ ist 1379 esa Hkh ;gh fl)kUr çfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA vçkFkÊ dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd muds uke xyr ntZ gks xà FkhA tks bUækt uqekÃ'kh FkkA okLro esa Hkwfe vçkFkÊ dh FkhA mä U;k; –"VkUrksa esa çfrikfnr U;kf;d fl)kUr ds vuqlj.k esa orZeku çdj.k esa Hkh gLrkUrj.k ds 32 o"kZ ls Hkh vfèkd ckn ;g jsQjsUl çLrqr fd;k x;k gS tks vR;fèkd foyEc ls çLrqr fd;k gS ,oa nsjh dk dksà leqfpr dkj.k ugÈ crk;k x;k gSA ftlls ;g jsQjsal [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA” 10. Thereafter, the petitioners, noticing certain illegalities and mistake committed by learned BoR in passing the order impugned dated 26.09.2018, preferred a review petition under Section 86 of the Act of 1956, however, the same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 11. Learned Single Judge also without considering the relevant facts of the case, serious issue as raised, the provisions of the Act of 1955, particularly Section 42(b) thereof, the provisions of the Act of 1956 and the settled law in regard to Section 42(b), illegal mutation done by Sarpanch dated 03.10.1975, order dated 20.03.1990 and 16.11.2016, as passed by authorities below, dismissed the writ petition on the grounds which were contrary to law. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (12 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] Brief facts about the land in question: 12. The brief facts, pertaining to the land in question, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Maloo, are as follow:- (i) The respondent No.2 stated that her father Sanwat Ram Meena purchased the land in question from Late Ramchandra, father of the petitioners herein, by the agreement to sale dated 21.06.1962 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,500/-. It was pointed out that the said sale agreement does not bear the signatures or thumb impressions of the purchaser Sawant Ram Meena (Annex-R 2/1) (First purchase of the disputed land). (ii) The respondent No.2, Smt. Premlata, further stated that she herself purchased the same land again from Khatedar Ramchandra for a consideration of Rs.24,999/- through a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1973 registered with Sub- Registrar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Second purchase of the disputed land). (iii) This Sale deed dated 26.11.1973 is the second sale document in respect of the same land and this document also does not bear the signature or thumb impression of the purchaser, i.e. respondent No.2, Premlata. The document contains thumb impression of some person stated to be Ramchandra, in the document, father of the petitioners herein, which they have denied. (iv) The respondent No.2 submitted an application for recording her name in the Revenue Record (mutation). Perusal of the notings as made in revenue record regarding mutation, as made in the year 1975 (dated 03.10.1975) shows that [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (13 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] entries were made by the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhankrota who made the mutation entry despite serious objection of Revenue Authority, i.e., by Patwari and Land Record Inspector. This illegal mutation of land, which belongs to a person of SC category, was dumped by Respondent No.2 on being objected as was done in collusion with Sarpanch by recording the false fact that Respondent No.2 is cultivating the land for long. Any entry in the Revenue Record in respect of mutation by any person despite serious noting and legal objection is illegal and same cannot give any kind of right or presumption in favour of respondent No.2. (v) From the year 1975 till the year 1990, no steps were taken by Respondent No.2, however, on 17.03.1990 (after 15 years), she made an application for issuance of land record Parcha in terms of registered sale deed of the land in question. (vi) The ASO, while considering the application, as filed by the respondent No.2, again noted, illegal transfer and raised a valid legal objection within time regarding the illegal mutation dated 03.10.1975 effected by the Sarpanch being in violation of Rules. Noticing such illegality, he referred the case to District Collector for necessary action in accordance with law. (vii) By the order dated 20.03.1990, State Revenue Officials, i.e., ASO raised objection about the illegal purchase and mutation, therefore, any limitation under the law, if to be counted, would start from 20.03.1990 and not from the year 1973 or 1975, as per learned Senior Counsel. It was also pointed out that order dated 20.03.1990 was also not in their knowledge. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (14 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] (viii) In terms of the order of ASO dated 20.03.1990, the file should have reached to the office of Collector, Jaipur and proceedings should have started, however, either the file did not reach the said office, or, if it did reach there, no such case was registered and the matter was intentionally dumped either in the office of ASO or Collector, Jaipur. (ix) It was in the year 2007, after the demise of their father in the year 2003, the petitioners filed an application before the District Collector, on which the aforementioned reference was registered, which thereafter, remained pending for ten years (i.e. from the year 2007 to 2016) and was further referred to learned BoR by learned Additional Collector, by judgment dated 16.11.2016, only after recording the serious facts, issues and the provisions of law which actually allowed the reference and declared the complete action of Respondent No.2 as illegal which includes purchase and mutation. 13. 13. The learned Senior Counsel, after referring to the order dated 20.03.1990 passed by ASO and judgment dated 16.11.2016 passed by Additional Collector, stated that the purchase as done by the respondent No.2, of the land in question, is in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. However, the learned BoR did not consider the same and passed the impugned order which is under challenge in the present Special Appeal. He referred to Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, being relevant to the issue, reads as under:- “42. General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest — The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenants of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if — [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (15 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] (a) Omitted. (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a number of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who in not a member of the Scheduled Tribe.” 14. By referring to Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, learned Senior Counsel specifically pointed out that any transfer of land by way of sale, gift or bequest by a member of SC category in favor of a non-SC category person shall be void and in the orders as under challenge in the present Special Appeal, this issue was not properly dealt with at all and was not examined in terms of the mandatory provisions of Section 42(b) along-with the law as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Hon’ble High Court in a catena of judgments. 15. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that learned BoR by impugned order dated 26.09.2018 rejected the reference solely on the ground of an alleged delay of 32 years in making the reference, whereas, in the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as such there is no such delay and even if there is any, then the same cannot be attributed to the petitioners herein. It was specifically pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that, first of all as per the Respondent No.2, the land in question had initially been purchased by her father, Samant Ram Meena (i.e. on 21.06.1962), and thereafter, by respondent No.2 again by way of a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1973. Neither of these two documents contain the signatures or thumb impressions of the respective purchasers, which, according to the petitioners, [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (16 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] show that the documents were prepared by playing fraud as late Ramchandra was an illiterate and a poor person belonging to SC category and he neither executed any such document during his lifetime nor did he appear before any authority for effecting any sale of the land in question. 16. Therefore, from the year 1973 till 2007, nothing happened in the records except mutation dated 03.10.1975 which was also seriously questioned, and this intentional silence on the part of the respondent No.2 Premlata and certain other responsible interested State Revenue Authorities discloses a serious nexus and collusion in the illegal purchase and transfer of land of the illiterate person, who belongs to the SC category in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. Therefore, from the year 1973 to 2007, the petitioners cannot be said to have caused any delay in questioning the illegal mutation and the illegal purchase of their land by the respondent No.2 herein in collusion with interested Revenue Officials, and this issue was neither examined nor considered by learned BoR. 17. Mr. Maloo, Sr. Counsel also pointed out that except the alleged delay of 32 years, the learned BoR did not adjudicate upon any other issue including the applicability and effect of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 on the illegal purchase and transfer of land in question. It was also contended that the learned BoR in the impugned order did not consider and discuss the timely questioning of the illegal purchase, which was in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, as noticed by ASO vide its order dated 20.03.1990 and again in the judgment dated 16.11.2016 [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (17 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] passed by the Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur. It was further pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that learned BoR recorded that, in terms of the law laid down in certain cited judgments, without mentioning the title of the case, reported in RNT 17 to page 1136, in which it was held that reference made after an inordinate delay could not be entertained, so dismissed the reference by an unreasoned and non-speaking order. Non-discussion of the order of the ASO dated 23.09.1990 and also the judgment dated 16.11.2016, passed by learned BoR shows intentional avoidance in the reference to those issues and orders which were to be examined and answered in the reference. 18. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the order dated 26.09.2018 and other orders as passed by learned BoR before the Hon’ble High Court and the learned Single Judge further committed a grave mistake by relying upon certain judgments wherein also it was held that reference made after an inordinate delay should not be entertained. The learned Single Judge recorded that reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 cannot be entertained after a serious delay even in cases involving a transfer allegedly made in in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, as no challenge was made by the petitioners for a considerable period after the sale of the land. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the petitioners have no right to question the same at a belated stage. The relevant paras of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2019 reads as under:- “10. The law laid down by this Court in Babu Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue & ors. (supra), which relies on [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (18 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] the earlier judgment passed in the case of Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.: 1996(2) WLC (Raj.) 36, would have direct application in the present case. In the aforesaid case of Babu Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue & ors. (supra), this Court held as under:- "8. In the present case, the petitioners' father was given khatedari rights as far back as 1958. Obviously, between 1958 to 1993, the family would have spent a sufficient part of their earning for the improvement of the land. The family would have become dependent for their livelihood upon the said land. Therefore, after inordinate delay of thirty-five years, neither the title for the possession of the said land can be disturbed. Therefore, the additional Collector has committed illegality while making the reference to the Board. Similarly the Board has failed to consider the fact that the reference was made after inordinate delay of thirty-five years. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.07.1994 passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 28.04.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue." 11. The reference is hopelessly barred by latches and delay. Taking clue from Section 175 of the Act of 1955 which provides 30 years limitation and cannot be extended in view of the judgment in Ram Karan (Dead) through LR's & ors. Vs. State of Raj. & ors (supra), this Court is unable to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners as there is no limitation provided under Section 82 of the Act of the Act of 1956, a reference made after 41 years, ought to be accepted. 12. There has to be some stability and finality to proceedings. The law of the land is to be understood for the purpose of bringing peaceful environment amongst its citizens and not to create chaos in lives of the individuals. In view of the law as settled by the Apex Court and by this Court earlier, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (19 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] dated 26/09/2018, 28/09/2018 and 14/01/2019 do not warrant interference and the same are upheld. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. All pending applications also stand dismissed.” 19. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that, in the impugned order dated 12.12.2019, the learned Single Judge adopted the same reasoning as that of the learned BoR while dismissing the writ petition. 20. It was further contended that both, the learned BoR and the learned Single Judge, passed the orders, impugned herein, on the ground of alleged delay in making the reference, therefore, he invited the attention of the Court to the applicable provisions of law in this regard. 21. According to learned counsel, Section 82 provides for a reference to State Government or learned BoR. The transfer of land in the present case is admittedly, in violation of Section 42(b), which would lead to ejectment in terms of Section 175 of the Act of 1955. In case transfer of land is in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, then State gets the right of ejection under Section 175 of the Act of 1955, for which an application is to be filed within the period of limitation, as prescribed. 22. Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and 175 of the Act of 1955 reads as under:- “82. Power [xxx] to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government of Board – [xxx] The Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records [or a Collector] may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any revenue court or officer [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (20 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or properiety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings; and, if he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate court or officer should be varied cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board, if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the State Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature not connected with Settlement; and the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall thereupon pass such order as it thinks fit. 175. Ejectment for illegal transfer or sub-letting— (1) If a tenant transfers or sub-lets, or executes an instrument purporting to transfer or sub-let, the whole or any part of his holding otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the transferee or sub-lessee or the purported transferee or sub-lessee has entered upon or is in possession of such holding or such part in pursuance of such transfer or sub lease, both the tenant and any person who may have thus obtained or may thus be in possession of the holding or any part of the holding, shall on the application of the land holder, be liable to ejectment from the area so transferred or sub-let or purported to be transferred or sub-let. (2) To every application, under this Section the transferee or the subtenant or the purported transferee or the sub-tenant, as the case may be, shall be joined as a party. (3) On an application being made under this section, the court shall issue a notice to the opposite party to appear within such time as may be specified therein and show cause why he should not be ejected from the area so transferred or sublet or purported to be transferred or sub-let. (4) If appearance is made within the time specified in the notice and the liability to ejectment is contested, [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (21 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] the court shall, on payment of the proper court fees, treat the application to be a suit and proceed with the case as a suit: Provided that in the event of the application having been made by a Tehsildar in respect of land held directly from the State Government no court-fee shall be payable (4-a) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in subsection (4), if the application is in respect of contravention of the provision contained in section 42 or the proviso to subsection (2) of section 43 or section 49-A, the court shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties of being heard, conclude the enquiry in a summary manner and pass order, as far as may be practicable within a period of three months from the date of the appearance of the non-applicants before it, directing ejectment of the tenant and his transferee or sub-lessee from the area transferred or sub-let in contravention of the said provisions. (5) If no such appearance is made, or if appearance is made but the liability to ejectment is not contested the court shall pass order on the application as it may deem proper” 23. Mr. Maloo, learned Senior Counsel, argued that Section 82 of the Act of 1956 does not provide for any limitation and, therefore, there could not be any issue of limitation in deciding the reference in question by the learned BoR, while keeping in mind the object for which Section 42(b) was inserted by the legislature in the Act of 1955. Section 82 and Section 175 provides for necessary and timely action by the State Revenue Authorities and officials. Without examining as to when the Revenue Authorities first time came to know about the illegal purchase and mutation, the period of limitation was treated to have started from [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (22 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 1973/1975, while deciding the issue as raised by the learned BoR. 24. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the issue of limitation was considered in continuation on the same principle by the learned Single Judge and the same is seriously erroneous, as both failed to consider the important fact that in the sale deed dated 26.11.1973 there are no signatures/ thumb impressions of the respondent No.2, which shows that no such sale deed actually took place and it is a forged document. Therefore, there was no actual sale of land in question by late Ramchandra in favour of the respondent No.2 herein. Thus, the delay could not be the sole ground to decide the writ petition when there was fraud and collusion, as pointed out, in the entire act of Respondent No.2. 25. Counsel for the petitioners further argued that their father, late Ramchandra, was an illiterate person who never sold the land in question either to the father of the respondent No.2 or to respondent No.2 herself, therefore, the mutation as done by Sarpanch, is illegal on the face of record and was done in collusion with respondent No.2 and, therefore, the same is void ab initio in terms of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. However, this fact was not considered by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 26. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that though sale was falsely presented by the forged sale deed dated 26.11.1973, but there was no actual sale of land and, therefore, the impugned order dated 26.09.2018 passed by learned BoR and other connected orders and the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, being factually and legally unsustainable in [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (23 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] the eye of law, deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of the arguments, he relied upon the following judgments:- (i) Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. reported; AIR 1964 SC 993 (ii) Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahakari Samiti Ltd & Anr; AIR 2015 SC 2126 (iii) Budh Dan v. Board of Revenue & Ors; 2005 (1) RLR 250 (iv) Chirman Lal v. State of Rajasthan; 2000(1)WLN (v) Kaloo Chand and Ors. v. The Board of Revenue and Ors.; 2003 (1) DNJ [Raj.] 315 (vi) Raju Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; 1999 (2) WLC Raj 610 (vii) Mangi Lal and Ors v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.; 1998 (1) WLC Raj. 625 (viii) Balvant N. Vishwamitra and ors. v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) through Lrs and Ors.; 2004 (8) SCC 706 (ix) Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Ors. v. Director Health Service, Haryana; (2013) 10 SCC 136 27. On the basis of the above submissions and cited law, learned Senior counsel lastly prayed that the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 and other impugned orders passed by learned BoR dated 26.09.2018 and illegal mutation dated 03.10.1975 be declared illegal, thereby quashed and set aside and the appeal be allowed. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (24 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 28. Per contra, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Madhusudhan Rajpurohit, Ms. Alankrita Sharma, Mr. Yogesh Kalla, Mr. Harshal Bansal and Ms. Nimisha Danga, appearing for the respondent No.2, vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge and orders of learned BoR. He submitted that the respondent No.2 purchased the land in question by way of a valid sale deed dated 26.11.1973, duly registered with the authorities and, therefore, the mutation was rightly opened in her name on 03.10.1975. 29. It was further argued by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Kamalakar Sharma, that no challenge to the sale deed in question was ever made before any competent Court, Authority, etc. by the petitioners herein from the year 1973 till 2007. Thus, the application, as filed by the petitioner in the year 2007, was hopelessly barred by limitation as the same was filed with an inordinate delay of more than 32 years and the law in regard to the interference in cases of delayed reference is well settled which provides that no interference should be made after an inordinate delay. 30. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Sharma, specifically argued that although no specific period of limitation has been prescribed under Section 82 of the Act of 1956, however, the period has to be reasonable which depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. In the absence of any challenge being made within reasonable time to the alleged illegal sale and mutation of land [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (25 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] dated 03.10.1975, the complete challenge as made in the year 2007, with serious delay, is baseless and same is not entertainable under the provisions of law. In support of his arguments, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments which are as under:- (i) Nathu Ram by Lrs. & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2004 (13) SCC 585 (ii) Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2014 (8) SCC 282 (iii) Babu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2002 (2) RLW 1142 (DB) (iv) State of Rajasthan Vs. Jor Singh; 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2900 (v) Charan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan; 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 10366 (vi) Supyar Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Ajmer & Ors.; 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 2639 (vii) Tara & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 1132 (viii) Chhedi Lal Yadav & Ors. Vs. Hari Kishore Yadav through Lrs. & Ors.; 2018 (12) SCC 527 (ix) Jagadish Vs. State of Karnataka; 2021 (12) SCC 812 (x) Shakuntala Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2024 (17) SCC 287 31. On the basis of above-cited judgments, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that by the two consecutive adjudications on the issue, one by the learned BoR by order dated 26.09.2018 and [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (26 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] another by the learned Single Judge dated 12.12.2019, the issues as raised have been rightly and properly considered, examined and thereby decided, and there is no perversity in both the orders. 32. Mr. Sharma further submitted that during the pendency of the Special Appeal, the Jaipur Development Authority (hereinafter to be referred as ‘JDA’ for short) has, after conducting the proceedings under Section 90-A of the Act of 1956, permitted for carving out residential scheme over the land in question, after inviting and considering the objections, as per law. It was further informed that Director (Law), JDA, before permitting 90-A proceedings, on the application filed by Respondent No.2, specifically noted in the note sheets of the record of the JDA that though the matter is sub judice before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, yet there is no effective stay in the matter and, therefore, permission for conducting of 90-A proceedings was granted. Thereafter, Pattas were issued to the alottees in respect of land in question between the period from 04.03.2024 to 05.12.2025. Therefore, now third-party rights have been created and the persons to whom pattas have been issued are now in possession of the respective plots, as alloted in the residential scheme carved out on the land in question. In given facts and circumstances, in term of the law as settled by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this High Court, the serious delay in questioning the alleged illegal transfer of land by a sale deed and also mutation as done on 03.10.1975 has been noted in the orders passed by two Courts, therefore, no interference is warranted and the present Special Appeal deserves to be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (27 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 33. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 34. This Court noted that the issue as raised in this case is related to transfer of land in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 and the alleged delay in questioning the illegal purchase by the petitioners herein and non-questioning and intentional non- exercise of power of ejectment under Section 175 by the State authorities on account of illegal transfer of land despite order of ASO dated 20.03.1990. The illegal mutation dated 03.10.1975 done by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhankrota has also been seriously questioned in the case, who carried out mutation despite serious noting and enquiry by Patwari and Land Record Inspector by which objection was made in the year 1975 itself. 35. Before adverting to the above issue as raised, to be decided in this Special Appeal, the facts as noted from the arguments and pleadings of the case are as under:- (i) Admittedly, the petitioners herein belongs to SC category in the State of Rajasthan and Late Ramchandra, father of the above-mentioned petitioners herein, was recorded Khatedar of the land in question. The land in question was first stated to be purchased by father of the respondent No.2 herein (Sanwat Ram Meena) in the year 1962 by an Agreement to Sale dated 21.06.1962 for a consideration of Rs.1500/-. However, no mutation was made in the records or to say that no application was made for the mutation even after alleged complete payment of amount for the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 and/or her father. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (28 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] (ii) Admittedly, without any justified reason on record, the same land was again purchased by respondent No.2 by sale deed dated 26.11.1973, which was registered with the Assistant Registrar, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. This Court fails to find any reason in the entire documents on record as to why same land was purchased again and again; this creates serious doubt about genuineness of the documents in question of the year 1962 and 1973. (iii) In both the documents, Agreement of Sale dated 21.06.1962 and sale deed dated 26.11.1973, there are no signatures or thumb impressions of the purchasers, i.e. Sanwat Ram Meena, father of the respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 herself, which in itself is a surprising and shocking act. (iv) Admittedly, Late Ramchandra was an illiterate person of SC category and both the persons, i.e. the father of respondent No.2 and her father appeared to be literate, and most importantly she signed the pleadings in Special Appeal and Power of Attorney ( vakalatnama ) in english, however, both did not put their signatures or thumb impressions on both the documents. Efforts were neither made in they year 1962 for mutation in the records, nor after sale deed and mutation dated 26.11.1973 and 03.10.1975 for issuance of land record Parcha. It is relevant to record here that from the year 1962 to 1990, the fact of purchase of land, twice, came to the knowledge of State Revenue Authorities and officials and as the transfer was in violation of Section 42(b), therefore in 1975 and 1990 [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (29 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] twice it was seriously objected as noted from the record by this Court . (v) After the second purchase, as done in the year 1973, complete silence was maintained till the year 1990 by the respondent No.2, which again bears no justification in the entire pleadings, the records and also in orders impugned before this Court, and thus, the same is highly surprising and hints otherwise. (vi) In the revenue record, as placed on record with Writ Petition, in the form of Annexure-1, mutation noting dated 03.10.1975 shows that mutation was accepted in favor of respondent No.2, and is reproduced hereunder:- “çålaå 1 fnukad 31@9@75 vkt ukekradj.k dksje ds le{k is'k gqvk NksVwjke iap us crk;k fd % lky ls dCtk dk'r pyk vk jgk gSA [ksrh o yxku çfr o"kZ blds }kj gh tek djkrs vk jgs gSA iVokjh gYdk HkkadjksVk us crk;k fd [ksrh yxku buds }kjk gh tek djk;k x;k gSA vr% ukekrdj.k djds Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS ukekradj.k Jherh çseyrk ds uke Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA ,lMh@ljiap] xzke iaå Hk‚djksVk lkaxkusj 3@10@75” (vii) It is important to record here that the mutation noting dated 03.10.1975, nowhere shows that earlier the land was owned by a person of SC category and now sold to non-SC category person. It also does not contain the fact that respondent No.2 purchased the land by way of a sale deed dated 26.11.1973. It bears a false fact that Respondent No. 2 was in possession and [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (30 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] cultivating the land for long. On the said false fact, the mutation was made. (viii) The above mutation as done in the revenue record, as informed, was made by Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhankrota even after objection of Patwari and enquiry report of Land Record Inspector. (ix) After the year 1975, the respondent No.2 submitted written application (Annexure-2) dated 17.03.1990 (after 15 years) which bears her signature in Hindi, whereby prayer was made for issuance of Land Record Parcha in her name. In this application, she did not mention the details of registered sale deed, however, mentioned the date of alleged mutation i.e. 03.10.1975. The content of application reads as under:- “fo"k; %& okådålaå 212 fnukad 3&10&75 ds }kjk ukekUrdj.kdk ipkZ ysus ds lEcaèk mijksä fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd xzke HkkdjksA rglhy lkaxkusj ftyk t;iqj esa xr [k0ua0 585] 586] 587] 588] 589] 590] 591] 592] 593] dks tfj;s foØ; i= }kjk [kjhn Fkk ftldk uko00dålaå 212 fnukad 3@10@75 ds }kjk çkFkÊ ds uke ukekradj Loh—r gksdj çkFkÊ ds ikl cqd Hkh fey pqdh gSA rFkk tekcanh esa Hkh ukådå dk uksV yxk gqvk gS vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd mä ukekrdj.k ds vuqlkj ipkZ fnyokus dh —ik djsA iklcqd dh QksVksLVsV çkFkZuk i= ds lkFk lyXu djsA” (x) On the above-mentioned application, the ASO passed an order on 20.03.1990 (as quoted in previous paragraph of the order) by which it was recorded that the mutation as made, was in violation of the Rules, but as he was not the competent authority to take action so he forwarded the matter to District Collector for taking appropriate action. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (31 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] (xi) This Court noted another important fact that the ASO by its order dated 20.03.1990 sent the matter to District Collector for necessary action, however, it appears that this file was intentionally dumped and did not see the light of the day as no steps were ever taken in respect of the order dated 20.03.1990. It has not come out from the documents on record that the file was ever sent to Collector’s office. There are no details in the entire record before this Court as to whether any action was taken or not and if no action was taken in terms of the order dated 20.03.1990, then what was the reason behind it. (xii) This Court noted another interesting fact, while going through the written synopsis, filed in the Special Appeal by the petitioners herein, which reads as under:- “VI. Husband of the non-petitioner was In- charge of land records in the concerned Tehsil so he avoided giving copies of revenue record to the petitioner.” If the husband of respondent No.2 was in-charge of the land records in the concerned Tehsil, then this appears to be a serious manipulation with the Government records as well as the proceedings as the said person, according to the petition, avoided giving copies of revenue record. The ASO by its order dated 20.03.1990 forwarded the case to the District Collector, Jaipur, however, the case never reached to the office of Collector and no action was ever taken up in terms of the order. In case, the matter had been sent to the office of the Collector, Jaipur in pursuance of [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (32 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] the order dated 20.03.1990 then, in pursuance to that, the Collector would have taken timely action. In such a case there would not have been any alleged delay in taking up the case and conducting proceeding in terms of Section 82 and/or Section 175 of the Act of 1955 for ejection on the illegal transfer of the land being in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. 36. It also transpires from the record of this case that the respondent No.2 did not challenge the order dated 20.03.1990 before any Court or Authority by which the ASO questioned the mutation, being in violation of the Rules. This leads to a definite conclusion that as respondent No.2 was aware that the said purchase cannot be legalised, in any manner, being in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, therefore, intentionally, the matter was dumped and no proceedings were allowed to be conducted which on the face of record is a serious fraud played on the State Government by certain person interested in grabbing the precious land in question in collusion with interested person of Revenue Department. 37. It is only after the petitioners filed the application in the year 2007 before the Collector Jaipur, the reference bearing No.133/2007 (12/2012) was registered, however, from year 2007 to 2016, for almost 9-10 years, the reference remained pending in the office of Collector. Though, the office of Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur by its judgment dated 16.11.2016 recorded the fact that the land was first purchased by the father of the respondent No.2 on 21.06.1962 for a consideration of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, the same land was again [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (33 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] purchased by respondent No.2 on 26.11.1973 for a consideration of an amount of Rs.24,999/- and the illegal mutation as was done on 03.10.1975 was also mentioned. After discussing all the facts and the provisions of Section 82, Section 42(b), the office of Additional Collector further referred the reference to learned BoR for adjudication. 38. This Court also noted that the knowledge of transfer of the land in question, in violation of Section 42(b), and the illegal mutation dated 03.10.1975, came to the knowledge of the Revenue Authorities, i.e. ASO, (after mutation of 1975), only when the respondent No.2 filed the application dated 17.03.1990. It is on receiving this application, the ASO recorded his objection that as the sale and the mutation were in violation of law and applicable rules, therefore, they did not issue any land record parcha in favour of respondent No.2. On the basis of the above, prima facie, it appears to this Court that from 1990 to 2007, the proceedings were obstructed by several interested persons and therefore, no case was registered in terms of the order of the ASO dated 17.03.1993. In view of the above, the period from 1990 till 2007 cannot be counted while calculating the alleged delay in making reference in respect of the illegal transfer of land in question. 39. This Court further noted an interesting fact that the Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur in its judgment dated 16.11.2016 specifically recorded the fact that though the respondent No.2 stated that her father was allotted the land since the Jagir time, however, she failed to produce any documentary evidence in her support. This new fact further shows that [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (34 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] another story was build up so as to give a legal colour to the illegal transfer of land, however same was not considered in the absence of any documentary evidence. It was further mentioned in the judgment dated 16.11.2016 that no document or evidence to support the agreement to sale dated 21.06.1962 was filed. On the basis of the sale deed dated 26.11.1973, the mutation as was made in the record by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat is in violation of the settled law. Therefore, it was observed in the judgment that the mutation deserves to be cancelled. Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the order dated 16.11.2016 are reproduced, hereagain :- “¼8½ ;g Hkh jktLo fjdkMZ esa ntZ fd;s x;s mDr ukekUrj.kdj.k ls Li"V gS fd bl dk;Zokgh ds fy, ntZ fd;s x;s ukekUrj.k la[;k 212 fu.kZ; fnukad 03-10-1975 ij lEcfU/kr iVokjh }kjk fVIi.kh dh xbZ gS fd **Jhekuth izkFkZuk gS fd ;g jdck jkepUnz cykbZ }kjk eh.kk tkfr dks fodz; gqvk gS] tehu ij dCtk o dk'r gks pqdk gS] mfpr dk;Zokgh ckn tkap ukekUrj.k Lohdkj djsa** rFkk bl ij tkap ds fy, Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd }kjk fVIi.kh dh xbZ gS fd **ukekUrj.k vkt okLrs tkap gsrq is'k gqvk exj ns[kus ls tkfgj gqvk fd ukekUrj.k --- ¼viB-½ voS/kkfud Hkjk x;k gS D;ksafd cykbZ tkfr ls cspku ls gksdj eh.kk tkfr esa Hkjk x;k gS] lks ukekUrj.k dkfcy [kkfjt gS**A iVokjh rFkk Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd dh Li"V fVIi.kh ds ckotwn LFkkuh; xzke iapk;r ds ljiap ds }kjk ukekUrj.k Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS tks fd fof/k }kjk LFkkfir izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gS rFkk ;g ukekUrj.k [kkfjt ;ksX; gSA [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (35 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] ¼9½ ;g fd bl ukekUrj.k ij lacaf/kr iVokjh ,oa Hkw vfHkys[k fujh{kd }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; dh Hkwfe xSj vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; dks gLrkarj.k fd;s tkus dh Li"V fjiksVZ vafdr dh tkdj bls voS/kkfud gksus dh fjiksVZ dh xbZ FkhA fQj Hkh lacaf?kr ljiap xzke iapk;r HkkadjksVk ds }kjk bls Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA ;g dk;Zokgh jktLFkku dk'rdkjh ukekUrjdj.k Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha FkkA ljiap }kjk bl ukekUrjdj.k dks Lohd`r fd;k tkuk ?kksj ,oa xEHkhj fof/k fo:) d`R; jgk gSA ¼10½ ;g fd fnukad 01-05-1964 ls izHkkoh jktLFkku dk'rdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 42¼ch½ esa fuEu O;oLFkk nh xbZ gS fd & **Section 42 – General restriction on sale, gift and bequest- The sale, gift or bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of holding shall be void, if: (a) deleted w.e.f. 11.11.1992 (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of a Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is of the scheduled caste, or by a member of a schedule tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the schedule tribe.** bl /kkjk esa Li"V gS fd ;fn vuqlwfpr tkfr ds lnL; ds }kjk vuqlwfpr tkfr ls vU;Fkk O;fDr dks fodz; vkfn fd;k tkrk gS rks og 'kwU; ¼Void½ gksxkA izLrqr izdj.k esa Hkwfe dk fodz; [kkrsnkj Jh jkepUnz iq= uUnk tkfr cykbZ ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr½ ls Jhefr iszeyrk iq=h lkacyjke eh.kk ¼xSj vuqlwfpr tkfr½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds lnL; ds i{k esa fd;k x;k fodz; foys[k fnukad 26-11-1973 Li"V :i ls 'kwU; ¼Void½ gS rFkk blls dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrs gSaA bl fodz; foys[k ds vk/kkj ij ntZ fd;k x;k ukekurjdj.k la[;k 212 fu.kZ; fnuka 03-10-1975 voS/k ,oa yksd uhfr ds fo:) gksus ds dkj.k fujLruh; gSA” The above quoted important and serious facts and observations as made by Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur in its judgment dated 16.11.2016, were not considered and discussed at all in the order impugned dated 26.09.2018 by learned BoR, which we shall deal in the further paras. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (36 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 40. A minute reading of para 8 of the judgment dated 16.11.2016, passed by Additional Collector, shows that in the year 1975 itself, the then Patwari, noticing the illegality, made a request to conduct an enquiry as per the provisions of 1956, before, accepting the mutation. On the said request as made, the enquiry under the Rules was conducted by the then Land Record Inspector, who further recorded that mutation has been done illegally and deserves to be cancelled. 41. Despite such a serious objection and enquiry by the Patwari and the then Land Record Inspector, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, accepted the mutation, which is in violation of the laws. Therefore, mutation being per se illegal cannot sustained in the eye of law. The Additional Collector further recorded in his judgment that as the said mutation, being based on the sale, as noted above, is illegal and also being against the public policy, therefore, the same deserves to be cancelled. All such serious observations in the judgment does not find any reference and discussion in the orders, as passed by the learned BoR, impugned in the Appeal before this Court. 42. Further, the reference, as referred to the learned BoR, was registered as Reference/LR/2094/2017/Jaipur, was decided by judgment dated 26.09.2018 with hyper technical approach by recording one page findings, in which it was mentioned that, in terms of Section 42(b) and Section 175 of the Act of 1955, on expiry of the period of limitation the reference cannot be entertained. Therefore, the same was dismissed by relying upon certain judgments, titles of which were not [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (37 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] even mentioned. The learned BoR recorded that the reference was made with a delay of 32 years from the date of transfer by counting from 26.11.1973/03.10.1975 to 2007. 43. While calculating this delay, the learned BoR in its order completely ignored the fact that the ASO by its order dated 20.03.1990 specifically raised the objections regarding the illegal mutation as done. Once the ASO forwarded the matter in March, 1990 itself to the Collector, then there was no delay in entertaining the reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1955 as serious facts were recorded by Additional Collector. 44. The learned BoR also did not enquire and examine the important issue as to why no action was taken by the office of Collector in terms of the ASO order dated 20.03.1990. The order as passed by the learned BoR dated 26.09.2018 is seriously illegal and perverse and contains no reasoning, except on the issue of delay, more so, when the illegality was pointed out in time by the then Patwari and also Land Record Inspector, who conducted the enquiry, as noted above by this Court from orders dated 20.03.1990 and 16.11.2016, were not examined and discussed, rather ignored. In view of the above discussion, this Court find serious illegality in the order impugned dated 26.09.2018 and other connected orders passed by learned BoR. 45. This Court has noted from various judgments as cited by learned counsel of the parties that serious delay occurred in almost all the cases where the land was transferred in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. It is a well known fact that all the revenue officials holding various posts are aware that no land [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (38 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] can be transferred in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, despite that such illegalities are happening in respect of such land. Even after being aware of such illegality, timely action are not taken up either due to collusion of the revenue official with private person. Thus, the interested and entrusted Revenue officials are also responsible for such illegal transfer and timely non-action. The mandate of Section 42(b), 82 and 175 of the Act of 1955 has been frustrated by State revenue officials. 46. The law in the event of such illegal transfer is also well settled. On such illegal transfer, Section 175 of the Act 1955 gives right to the State Government to timely file application for ejectment (with a limitation period of 30 years), and to take land in its possession. The collusion of interested Revenue officials is apparent in not taking timely action to stop such illegal transfer, which results in easy unopposed transfer of land in the hands of a private person. Law on this issue is well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), wherein it was held that purchaser of land in violation of Section 42(b) cannot have any valid title and despite such law in place, illegality have been allowed to perpetuate. In the present case, first in the year 1975 and later in the year 1990, twice, the illegal transfer was noted and seriously objected, however timely action under the law was obstructed, which is serious in nature according to this Court. 47. This Court further considered the order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the following grounds:- [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (39 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] (i) That the reference was made after more than 40 years by counting the period from 1972. (ii) During the lifetime of Ramchandra, father of the petitioners herein, no objection was raised in regard to the transfer of the land from SC to ST. (iii) Considered the adverse position of the respondent No.2 on the land in question, which created the right in her favour. 48. On the above-mentioned grounds, the Writ Petition was dismissed noticing a considerable delay in making reference. The learned Single Judge refused to make interference with the order also for the reason that there has to be some stability and finality to the proceedings under the law. This Court noted an interesting fact that delay of 32 years as noted by BoR further increased to 40 years in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Whether a further challenge to an order can increase the delay period? No, according to this Court. 49. The issue, in respect of the transfer of land in question, being in violation of section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 was also examined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathu Ram (dead) by lrs and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2004 (13) SCC 585 and Ram Karan (D) Tr. Lrs. & Ors vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014(8) SCC 282. In the case of Nathu Ram (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court while noticing the fact that transfer was in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, held that the State is required to file an application or take action under Section 175 of the Act for ejectment. For filing an application under Section 175 read with [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (40 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] Section 214 of the Act, limitation has been specified in Third Schedule. Clause 6 of Schedule III (after 05.10.1981) provides a 30 years limitation period. As in the said case, Nathu ram (supra), the transfer was made prior to the amendment dated 05.10.1981 and the suit/application was filed after the earlier limitation period of 12 years, therefore, no interference was made as the process of ejectment was barred by limitation. The relevant para of the judgment reads as under :- “4. The contention urged by the appellant's counsel is that by virtue of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any transaction made in contravention has been declared to be void and, therefore, the period of limitation is not applicable and that the authority should have held that the appellants are entitled to get possession. It may be noticed that for taking an action under Section 175 of the Act, the procedure as prescribed under sub-section 4(A) of Section 175 has to be adopted. It is also to be noticed that under Section 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, period of limitation is prescribed for initiating action under Section 175. Under Section 214, it is stated that: “214. (1) The suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be instituted and made within the time prescribed therein for them and every such suit instituted or application made after the expiry of the period of limitation so prescribed shall be dismissed:” Under the Third Schedule, in clause 66, for an application for ejectment for illegal transfer or sub- letting, the period of twelve years is originally prescribed for filing such an application from the date of transfer or sub-lease. The provision relating to the period of limitation was later on amended with effect from 5-10-1981 and the period was prescribed as 30 years. So far as the present transaction is concerned, [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (41 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] the period of limitation applicable is twelve years. The transfers being one on 2-4-1964 and another on 4-5- 1964, the proper application should have been filed within twelve years, but it was filed before the Sub- Divisional Officer only on 22-11-1976. In that view of the matter, the proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, it was barred by limitation and the finding of the SDO is correct which has been rightly confirmed by the authorities right up to the High Court. 5. The contention of the appellant's counsel that the assignments were by itself void, therefore, the period of limitation has no application, cannot be accepted for the reason that the specified procedure is prescribed under clause 4(A) of Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. If only such proceeding is initiated, the authorities are entitled to declare that such transfer executed is void and property be resumed. Therefore, we do not find much force in the contention of the learned counsel. The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed.” 50. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Karan (Supra), considered the judgment passed in the case of Nathu Ram (Supra) and after discussing the complete land transaction, relevant date, the amendments in the Act of 1955, as took place from time to time, and also considering Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, held that the sale of land being in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 will not give any right to the purchaser of land. The relevant para of the judgment as passed in the case of Ram Karan (Supra) are reproduced as under:- “23. Hence, the question that arises for our consideration is whether in view of proviso to Section [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (42 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 42 inserted by Second Amendment Act 28 of 1956, the sale deed executed on 12-1-1962 is void or not. xxxxxxxx 29. In the present case, the sale deed in question was alleged to be made when it was forbidden by law (proviso to Section 42). Therefore, the appellant cannot derive advantage of the decision rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in Triveni Shyam Sharma [Triveni Shyam Sharma v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1965 Raj 54]. 32. The counsel for the appellants referred to the decision of this Court in Nathu Ram v. State of Rajasthan [Nathu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 13 SCC 585] and in the said case this Court held: (SCC pp. 586-87, para 4) “4. The contention urged by the appellant's counsel is that by virtue of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any transaction made in contravention has been declared to be void and, therefore, the period of limitation is not applicable and that the authority should have held that the appellants are entitled to get possession. It may be noticed that for taking an action under Section 175 of the Act, the procedure as prescribed under sub- section (4-A) of Section 175 has to be adopted. It is also to be noticed that under Section 214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, period of limitation is prescribed for initiating action under Section 175. Under Section 214, it is stated that: ‘214. Limitation in cases under this Act.—(1) The suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be instituted and made within the time prescribed therein for them and every such suit instituted or application made after the expiry of the period of limitation so prescribed shall be dismissed:’ Under the Third Schedule, in Item 66, for an application for ejectment for illegal transfer or sub-letting, the period of twelve years is originally prescribed for filing [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (43 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] such an application from the date of transfer or sub-lease. The provision relating to the period of limitation was later on amended with effect from 5-10-1981 and the period was prescribed as 30 years. So far as the present transaction is concerned, the period of limitation applicable is twelve years. The transfers being one on 2-4- 1964 and another on 4-5-1964, the proper application should have been filed within twelve years, but it was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer only on 22-11-1976. In that view of the matter, the proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, it was barred by limitation and the finding of the SDO is correct which has been rightly confirmed by the authorities right up to the High Court.” 34. In the present case, no action was taken either by the vendor or by the State for more than 31 years. The sale deed was executed on 12-1-1962 and the land was mutated in the name of the appellants' predecessor-in- interest on 10-9-1963. It was after about 31 years, on 6-7-1993 the suit was filed by the Tehsildar, Viratnagar being Case No. 1681 of 1993. In the said suit for the first time an application was filed for appointment of Receiver. The said application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Shahpura vide order dated 1-1- 1994 holding that the vendee has been in possession and cultivating the suit land for 32 years. 35. In view of the position of law, as noticed above, it is not necessary to see whether the petition for cancellation of mutation was filed on time or not. The decision of this Court in Nathu Ram [Nathu Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 13 SCC 585] relates to Section 42 of the Act and the transaction made in contravention with the provisions of the said Act. In the said case similar plea were taken by the parties, having noticed sub-section (4-A) of Section 175 and Section [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (44 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 214 of the Act, this Court held that as the transaction was made much beyond the period of 12 years, the proceeding was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, barred by limitation. 37. In view of the matter, we hold that the suit being filed beyond the reasonable period was fit to be dismissed. The Additional Collector rightly dismissed the suit being barred by limitation.” 51. The Hon'ble Apex Court further, in the case of Ram Karan (Supra) also considered the 30 year limitation period for ejectment for illegal transfer or sub-letting, as prescribed in Section 214 of the Act of 1955 and held that the suit or application as filed by the Tehsildar was barred by limitation of 30 years as it was filed after about 31 years and therefore, the ejectment proceedings in the said case was held to be bad in law. 52. The interesting question which arises for consideration for this Court is that following the verdict as passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Karan (Supra), the transaction as made in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 will not give any right to the person of non-SC or non-ST category in terms of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Once this purchase, sale etc. being in violation of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, is held void ab initio, in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Karan (Supra), then the same would not create any right in favour of such purchaser. Therefore, now, the question is where the land will go. The judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Karan (supra) is silent on this issue. None of the counsel [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (45 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] was able to assist this Court in regard to the fate of the land, transaction of which has been held to be void ab initio. Once the person of SC category sells its land to a non-SC person, in violation of Section 42(b), then he loses his rights over the land in question. Then comes the question of ejectment for which the proceedings under Section 175 are to be initiated within the limitation period i.e., 30 years as per Section 214 of the Act of 1955. 53. For counting the period of limitation the dates of every transaction and the various acts as done by the authorities, buyer and seller of the land in question are relevant. In the present case, the land was purchased from the original Khatedar Ramchandra, by a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1973. 54. After the alleged illegal second purchase, as done by way of registered sale deed dated 26.11.1973, the respondent No.2 was required to have the mutation in her name. Surprisingly and shockingly the mutation dated 03.10.1975, despite the above noted serious objection, was done by the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Therefore, the registered sale deed dated 26.11.1973 and the alleged mutation dated 03.10.1975 were illegal. This objection and the report of Inspector Land Record was never questioned or challenged by Respondent No.2 and therefore, attained finality. 55. Due to the above serious objection, a complete silence was maintained by respondent No.2 from the year 1975 till 1990 and nothing was done in respect of the land in question. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (46 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 56. After maintaining silence for 15 years, the application dated 17.03.1990 was filed by respondent No.2 and on the said application, again the ASO recorded objections as noted above. Though, as already noted above, the ASO recorded his serious objection about the transaction in question on 20.03.1990 and forwarded the case to District Collector, Jaipur for necessary action, however, no such action was ever taken in this regard. This Court noted from the paras of written submission (as filed by petitioners) in which they have stated that husband of respondent No.2 was working as In-charge of land records in the concerned Tehsil, so he avoided giving copies of the revenue record to them. If this fact is correct, then this Court has no doubt about the fact that despite passing an order dated 20.03.1990, no steps were allowed to be taken for ejectment in terms of Section 175 and/or for reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1955. As nothing was done in pursuance of order dated 20.03.1990, prima facie it appears that the file was dumped by the interested person and the allegation of the petitioners about the role of husband of the respondent No.2 finds substance and strength . 57. It is only after the death of the Khatedar Ramchandra, the petitioners filed the application before the District Collector, Jaipur on 16.08.2007 when, as per them, revenue authorities intended to record the land in favour of respondent no. 2. Thereafter, the proceedings started in which the Additional Collector (IV), Jaipur, who recorded the detailed serious facts in regard to the transfer of land in question, the illegal mutation etc. in its judgment dated [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (47 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 16.11.2016. The original Khatedar Late Ramchandra was illiterate, and so was his sons and daughters, who had no knowledge, as informed to this Court, about the said illegal purchase of land. There is no fact on record which may prove that the alleged purchase of land by sale deed dated 26.11.1973 was in their knowledge prior to year 2007. This Court also noted that no steps were taken by respondent no. 2 during the lifetime of khatedar Ramchandra, in regard to the land in question. 58. For counting the limitation period, knowledge of the complete action is important and in the present case, as noted, the petitioners had no knowledge about such illegal transaction and further the complete intentional silence maintained by the respondent No.2, first from the year 1973/1975 till 1990 and from the year 1990 till 2007 further affirmed this fact and leaves no doubt about the fact that knowingly the land was purchased in violation of Section 42 (b) of the Act of 1955, in collusion with some revenue officials including her husband. Further, it is due after repeated objection, as raised in the year 1975 and 1990, the case was dumped by Respondent No.2 and the State Government was obstructed from taking timely action for either filing reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 and/or for ejectment in terms of Section 175 of the Act of 1955 within the period of limitation. 59. This Court, while further considering the issue of limitation, also noted that Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides in respect of fraud or mistake. Any right derived or acquired by playing fraud upon the authorities, bodies, courts etc. could not [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (48 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] create any right as same would be nullity in the eye of law. Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as under :- “17. Effect of fraud or mistake.—(1) Where, in the case of any suit or application for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act,— (a) the suit or application is based upon the fraud of the defendant or respondent or his agent; or (b) the knowledge of the right or title on which a suit or application is founded is concealed by the fraud of any such person as aforesaid; or (c) the suit or application is for relief from the consequences of a mistake; or (d) where any document necessary to establish the right of the plaintiff or applicant has been fraudulently concealed from him, the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake or could, with reasonable diligence, have discovered it; or in the case of a concealed document, until the plaintiff or the applicant first had the means of producing the concealed document or compelling its production: Provided that nothing in this section shall enable any suit to be instituted or application to be made to recover or enforce any charge against, or set aside any transaction affecting, any property which— (i) in the case of fraud, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the fraud and did not at the time of the purchase know, or have reason to believe, that any fraud had been committed, or (ii) in the case of mistake, has been purchased for valuable consideration subsequently to the transaction in which the mistake was made, by a person who did not know, or have reason to believe, that the mistake had been made, or (iii) in the case of a concealed document, has been purchased for valuable consideration by a person who was not a party to the concealment and, did not at the time of purchase know, or have reason to believe, that the document had been concealed. (2) Where a judgment-debtor has, by fraud or force, prevented the execution of a decree or order within the period of limitation, the court may, on the application of the judgment-creditor made after the expiry of the said [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (49 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] period extend the period for execution of the decree or order: Provided that such application is made within one year from the date of the discovery of the fraud or the cessation of force, as the case may be.” 60. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, in the case of Jitendra Pratap Singh v. Upsanchalak Chakbandi Sultanpur Camp Lucknow and Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine All 6330 decided on 26.09.2025, discussed the applicability of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, and held as under:- “33. Accordingly, in case Section 17 is applied, then the period of limitation would commence from the date of discovery of fraud. In the present case, the reasons for the delay have been duly considered by the Settlement Officer Consolidation, where it was stated that the father of the petitioner, who was working in the police department, served in various districts, and the petitioner, who was a student, had been accompanying his father wherever he was posted. He further submits that his father superannuated from service in 1971 from Tigahana Mau and died in 1990. It is further stated that the petitioner and his brother started agricultural activities along with his relatives on the disputed land, and it is only in 2013 that he came to know that the land had been recorded exclusively in the name of Lalta Singh. Though the delay was of extremely long length of time, but the delay caused was satisfactorily explained, and also that these facts were never controverted by the respondents, coupled with the fact that the order assailed in the appeal was itself obtained by fraud accordingly, such delay was which was duly and satisfactorily explained was entitled to be condoned, and both the authorities below have committed manifest error in declining to condone the delay and dismissing the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (50 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 34. With regard to the delay caused in setting aside an order obtained by fraud, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., (2007) 4 SCC 221 have held as under:— “Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”. It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 All ER 341 : [1956] 1 Q.B. 702 : [1956] 2 WLR 502, Lord Denning observed: “No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud.” In Duchess of Kingstone, Smith's Leading Cases, 13th Edn., p.644, explaining the nature of fraud, de Grey, C.J. stated that though a judgment would be res judicata and not impeachable from within, it might be impeachable from without. In other words, though it is not permissible to show that the court was ‘mistaken’, it might be shown that it was ‘misled’. There is an essential distinction between mistake and trickery. The clear implication of the distinction is that an action to set aside a judgment cannot be brought on the ground that it has been decided wrongly, namely, that on the merits, the decision was one which should not have [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (51 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] been rendered, but it can be set aside, if the court was imposed upon or tricked into giving the judgment. It has been said; Fraud and justice never dwell together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant); or fraud and deceit ought to benefit none (fraus et dolus nemini patrocinari debent). Fraud may be defined as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing some unfair or undeserved benefit by taking undue advantage of another. In fraud one gains at the loss of another. Even most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud. Fraud is thus an extrinsic collateral act which vitiates all judicial acts, whether in rem or in personam. The principle of ‘finality of litigation’ cannot be stretched to the extent of an absurdity that it can be utilized as an engine of oppression by dishonest and fraudulent litigants. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.(1994) 1 SCC 1: JT (1994) 6 SC 331, this Court had an occasion to consider the doctrine of fraud and the effect thereof on the judgment obtained by a party. In that case, one A by a registered deed, relinquished all his rights in the suit property in favour of C who sold the property to B. Without disclosing that fact, A filed a suit for possession against B and obtained preliminary decree. During the pendency of an application for final decree, B came to know about the fact of release deed by A in favour of C. He, therefore, contended that the decree was obtained by playing fraud on the court and was a nullity. The trial court upheld the contention and dismissed the application. The High Court, however, set aside the order of the trial court, observing that “there was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. B approached this Court. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations of [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (52 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] the High Court as ‘wholly perverse’, Kuldip Singh, J. stated: “The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean-hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan- dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court - process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation”. (emphasis supplied) The Court proceeded to state: “A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party”. The Court concluded:“The principle of ‘finality of litigation’ cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants”. In Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 550 : JT (1996) 7 SC 135, referring to Lazarus Estates and Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council, [1956] A.C. 336 : (1956) 1 All ER 855 : [1956] 2 WLR 888, this Court stated; “The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by Fraud on Court. In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the Decree obtained by fraud. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (53 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] Inherent powers are powers which are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the Constitution of the Tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court's business”. (emphasis supplied) In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, (2000) 3 SCC 581 : JT (2000) 3 SC 151, by practising fraud upon the Insurance Company, the claimant obtained an award of compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. On coming to know of fraud, the Insurance Company applied for recalling of the award. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the petition on the ground that it had no power to review its own award. The High Court confirmed the order. The Company approached this Court. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders, this Court stated; “It is unrealistic to expect the appellant company to resist a claim at the first instance on the basis of the fraud because appellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by the claimants. If the Insurance Company comes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the company to file a statutory appeal against the award. Not only because of bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (54 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] Therefore, we have no doubt that the remedy to move for recalling the order on the basis of the newly discovered facts amounting to fraud of high degree, cannot be foreclosed in such a situation. No Court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. The allegation made by the appellant Insurance Company, that claimants were not involved in the accident which they described in the claim petitions, cannot be brushed aside without further probe into the matter, for, the said allegation has not been specifically denied by the claimants when they were called upon to file objections to the applications for recalling of the awards. Claimants then confined their resistance to the plea that the application for recall is not legally maintainable. Therefore, we strongly feel that the claim must be allowed to be resisted, on the ground of fraud now alleged by the Insurance Company. If we fail to afford to the Insurance Company an opportunity to substantiate their contentions it might certainly lead to serious miscarriage of justice”. 35. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prashant Singh v. Meena, (2024) 6 SCC 818 while dismissing the appeals held as under:— “14. The power to declare the ownership in an immovable property can be exercised only by a Civil Court, save and except when such jurisdiction is barred expressly or by implication under a law. Section 49 of the 1953 Act does not and cannot be construed as a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the ownership rights.3 15. Having held so, it is not difficult to explain that Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights as a tenure holder. He was co-owner in the suit land much before the consolidation proceedings commenced. Hence, the only declaration and adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal or 1 Attar Singh v. State of U.P., 1959 Supp (1) SCR 928, [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (55 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] para 3. 2 Amar Nath v. Kewla Devi, (2014) 11 SCC 273, para 17. 3 Karbalai Begum v. Mohd. Sayeed, (1980) 4 SCC 396, para 12-13. Kalyan Singh that a Consolidation Officer could undertake under Section 49 of the 1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of their respective land holdings and consolidate or redistribute the parcels of land among them. As analyzed above, the provision does not enable the Consolidation Officer to grant ownership to Ramji Lal in respect of a property, which, before the consolidation proceedings, never vested in him. Vice versa, the Consolidation Officer could not take away the ownership rights of Kalyan Singh which he had already inherited much before the commencement of the consolidation proceedings. 16. That being so, the order dated 08.05.1960 passed by the Consolidation Officer has rightly been held to be null and void and without any jurisdiction. It was passed usurping a power fraudulently, which never ever vested in a Consolidation Officer. The said order is thus liable to be ignored for all intents and purposes. Having held that, it is not necessary for us to go into the question of fraud played upon Kalyan Singh in securing that order with or without collusion of the Consolidation Officer. All that is required to be held is that the order dated 08.05.1960 had no binding force or any adverse effect on the rights of Kalyan Singh.” 61. It is not in dispute that any rights acquired by way of judgment, decree, order, etc. by playing fraud is in nullity in the eye of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vishnu Vardhan@Vishnu Pradhan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1371; 2025 INSC 884 dated 23.07.2025 while considering the issue of fraud committed upon authorities held as under - [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (56 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] “85. In Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, this Court held that: 17. It is a settled legal proposition that where a person gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law as fraud unravels everything. “Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law.” It is trite that “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. Fraud and deception are synonymous. “Fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine.” An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. [Vide Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy [(2010) 8 SCC 383, para 34.] 18. However, the question does arise as to whether it is permissible for a party to treat the judgment and order as null and void without getting it set aside from the competent court. The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. For setting aside such an order, even if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. [Vide State of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth [(1996) 1 SCC 435] and Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla v. Hind Rubber Industries (P) Ltd. [(1997) 3 SCC 443]. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (57 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 86. Moreover, as noted hereinabove, the decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) delineated that every Court, either superior or inferior – first or final – has jurisdiction in cases where a judgment of the court has been obtained by fraud to treat it as nullity.” 62. Admittedly, the land, as purchased was in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. Further, mutation as done in the record by the Sarpanch of the concerned Gram Panchayat was also a clear fraud, as it was done by recording false fact and also in disregard to the serious noting and enquiry of Patwari and Land Record Inspector, which was a result of fraud as played by the respondent No.2 with the revenue authorities i.e. the State Government. This fraud played by Respondent No.2 remained unnoticed from the year 1975 till 1990 and further, from year 1990 to year 2007. It is the Additional Collector who noted the entire act in its judgment. On account of the fraud as played by Respondent No.2, i.e., from the period 1975 till 1990 and 1990 to 2007, this period cannot be counted either against the State or against the petitioners herein, and the same has been noted extensively by this Court. Further from 1973/1975 to 2022-23, noting was done in respect of the land in question and it remained as it is. This further shows, being aware of consequences of illegal transfer, the steps were not taken by Respondent No.2. 63. After this order was reserved, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court examined a similar controversy in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 631/2025 titled as M/s Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (58 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] on 09.06.2026. In the case of Sanskar Land Developers (supra), though the issue was of transfer of land in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 was raised, however in the said case, the reference was rejected long back and the State after considerable delay filed a second reference which was based on the report of Justice Beri Commission. The said judgment was based on different facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 64. As the complete exercise was done by Respondent No.2 by playing fraud upon the authorities in collusion with certain interested persons, in which her own husband was also involved, therefore, the alleged delay, cannot be counted even from the year 1990 as no action was taken after order of the ASO dated 20.03.1990 as State authorities were not allowed to initiate the proceedings to be conducted. This is a clear fraud, manipulation and obstruction in State action and therefore, the period of alleged delay cannot be read against the State. 65. This Court is of the firm opinion that a fraud was played upon the State Revenue Authorities and therefore, no steps/action under Section 175 read with Section 214 and/or Section 82 of the Act of 1955 was allowed to be undertaken. It is on account of this fraud, this matter was made to suffer with a delay which was intentionally caused and the same has been taken as a sole ground by learned BoR and learned Single Judge in passing the orders which are impugned in the present Special Appeal. Further, in both the orders, different period of delay i.e. 32 years and 40 years was recorded without any basis. In view of the [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (59 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] non- examination and consideration of the issues, this Court has reached to the conclusion that both the orders are perverse being unreasoned non-speaking and thus, deserve to be quashed and set aside. 66. In regard to the transfer of land in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955, two judgments, as passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nathu Ram (supra) and Ram Karan (supra), were cited by the learned counsel for the respondent and also considered by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order. However, despite passing of such orders, the State Revenue Authorities, by their intentional silent act, are not taking necessary action under Section 82, 175 and 214 of the Act of 1955 as noted above, in respect of the transfer of land in the State of Rajasthan, in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. This Court has noted that State Revenue Authorities are acting contray to the mandate of Section 42(b) by allowing such easy illegal transfer in the hands of private person. This Court cannot shut its eyes to this important issue and allow such illegality to perpetuate as no authority can be allowed to act contrary to the constitutional and statutory provisions. Once it is provided under the statutory laws that transfer, in violation of section 42(b) is void ab initio , and is well within the knowledge of all Revenue Authorities, including the sarpanch and other persons, no further act including mutation and other exercise can be allowed. The revenue officials of the State are frustrating the mandate of Section 42(b). [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (60 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] This Court is of the view that once transfer of land in violation of Section 42(b) has taken place, then filing an application or initiating process under Section 175 or any other law for ejectment or for taking the possession of the land, as the owner of the land (SC/ST category person) losses his right over the land and as the transaction is void ab initio, is a mere procedural formality as purchaser also does not get any right over it. In such circumstances, it becomes the Government land or to say the public land. No delay or fraud can come in the way of land to be treated as public once the transaction became void ab initio in terms of Section 42(b) and judgment passed in the case of Ram Karan (supra). State cannot be obstructed in taking possession of the land in question where its officials have intentionally or by the sheer negligence failed to take timely action under the law. This fact was also recorded by Additional Collector in its order dated 16.11.2016 that transfer is against the state policy. 9 0-A proceedings during the pendency of this Appeal 67. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 also informed this Court that during the pendency of the this appeal, the JDA after following the due procedure of law, allowed the proceedings under section 90-A of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, in terms of which the land in question in this case was surrendered by respondent no. 2 and the plots were allotted under the scheme as carved out. 68. This Court is surprised to note that when Hon’ble Apex Court in terms of law laid down in the case of Ram kumar (supra) has [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (61 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] specifically held that no right can be acquired by such purchaser of land in violation of Section 42(b), being the transaction void ab initio, then how 90A proceedings could be allowed to be conducted by the JDA. Allowing the 90A proceedings, being contrary to the judgment of Ram Kumar (supra) is serious in nature and nothing less than contemptuous. The authorities like JDA as in present case are permitting 90A despite knowing that the transaction/ transfer of land is void ab initio. 69. The above exercise was carried out during the period from the year 2023 to 2025. This Court while perusing the previous order-sheets of this Appeal noted that the matter was listed before various Co-ordinate benches continuously. On 29.06.2022, the matter was heard in part which shows that the respective counsel made their arguments at length. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 06.07.2022 and 27.07.2022. 70. Thereafter, the matter was again taken up on 19.04.2023, 25.05.2023, 01.08.2023 and 05.09.2023, however, after 05.09.2023 the matter was not heard. May be it did not reach or adjournments were sought by the counsel. During this period, despite knowing the fact that the Court was hearing the matter, Respondent no. 2 proceed with the 90-A proceedings, so as to frustrate the issue pending before the Court for adjudication which is nothing less than overreaching the process of the Court. This Court has been obstructed in deciding the issue as pending in the present Appeal. It is also noted from note-sheet of JDA that as there was no stay in the case, however while perusing order sheet of this file, this Court noted that the stay was never rejected, [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (62 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] rather the stay application was pending. The above act of JDA in respect of the present land prima facie shows a serious collusion and this also again happened in collusion with interested Revenue Officials including the officials working at the relevant time in the Zone-12 of the JDA in whose jurisdiction the land in question is situated. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, during the course of his arguments, provided certain note-sheets of the JDA by which permission for 90-A proceedings was granted. By the note sheets, it was shown to this Court that after following the due processes of law, the same was permitted. This Court, while perusing the note-sheet, also noted that online routine approvals were granted by the JDA with a usual condition that the permission for 90-A is granted only when there is no pending litigation in respect of the land in question. However, the concerned official of the Zone-12, in respect of the land in question, specifically made a noting about the above usual routine approvals and specifically mentioned that as far as the present land in question is concerned, various litigation are pending in the Court, and therefore, sought specific direction for 90-A proceedings in the case. 71. This noting dated 28.03.2023 was not taken seriously and the permission for 90-A was granted in a routine manner, contrary to judgment of Ram Kumar (supra) for carving out the housing scheme of the land in question and thereafter the plots were allotted. [2026:RJ-JP:7598-DB] (63 of 63) [SAW-150/2020] 72. This Court further noted that even in the present Appeal, no one appeared on behalf of the Revenue Department to assist the Court and to inform the stand of the State Government. It seems State and its revenue officials are least concerned about transfer of Land in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955 and to take timely action under the Law. 73. In terms of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 12.12.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, being erroneous and perverse, is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh in light of the discussion made in this judgment. 74. All actions/steps carried out in respect of 90-A proceedings, including permission for 90A granted by JDA, during the pendency of this appeal are also declared illegal in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) and are hereby quashed and set aside. 75. In view of the above this special appeal is partly allowed. 76. All pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 77. There shall be no order as to costs(s). (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Dushyant Singh