PHOOL CHAND Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WOULD the Stay order again deprive the Chamars of land and make them landless by judicial process? Should the stay order be vacated, is the sole controversy in this land reforms litigation ?

(2.) IN this case, the principal submission of Shri Pareek who is objecting the grant of stay is that under S. 42 and46 A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, there is blanket prohibition and mandatory restriction on transfer of land by Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe to non-S. C. either by sub-letting or by mortgage or by sale and this Court in Ballu Vs. Birda (1) has held that even a decree by compromise in respect of such land would be a nullity and honest. Shri Pareek submits that all the three court below have held in favour of the defendants who are the members of the S. C. being Chamar and, therefore, they should not be deprived of the possession.

(3.) DEPRIVING weaker section of possession and making them landless by process of litigation, would be doing violence to socio-economic land reforms laws Stay order would result in making them landless.