CHETAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel. In the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that the land in dispute was purchased by him from respondents No. 4 and 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is not a person of the scheduled caste and respondents No. 4 and 5 are the persons of the scheduled caste.

(2.) THIS Court in Govind Ram vs. Chittar and others (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1404 of 1983, decided on August 1, 1983 at Jaipur Bench) has held that the provisions of s. 53a of the T. P. Act cannot override the provisions of s. 42 (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In that case, it was further held that the law of limitation applicable in such matters should be considered not qua-the seller and the purchaser but it should be considered qua the State Government and the person who claims the possession. The seller of the agricultural land is a tenant and is not landholder. The landholder is the State Government and if the question of limitation arises then, the adverse possession has to be considered against the State Government and for this reason, the period prescribed for the purpose of adverse possession against the State can only be considered and not the period prescribed interse purchaser and seller in the matter of agricultural land. In Govind Ram's case (supra), the matter relating to sale was also considered and it was held that the transaction of oral sale, requiring compulsory registration under s. 54 of the T. P. Act is not saved by the doctrine of part performance and further more, in a case like this where the provisions of s. 42 (b) of the Act admittedly applies, there cannot be any transfer of the interest of a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribes in favour of the persons of the other communities and that for this also, the transfer is nonest and the question of applicability of s. 53 A of the T. P. Act does not apply.