RAM CHANDRA Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner. The sole point which calls for our consideration is whether a sale of agricultural holding made by a member of the scheduled caste in contravention of provisions of sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, is void or voidable? Section 42, as it existed in the year 1960, is reproduced below: - "42 Sale or gift.- Except with the general of special permission of the State Government no Khatedar tenant shall have right to transfer by sale or gift his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who at the date of such transfer is already in possession of land which together with the land so transferred will exceed 90 acres of unirrigated or thirty acres of irrigated land. Explanation: - If such land is partly irrigated and partly unirrigated, one acre of irrigated land shall, for calculating the are of land for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be equivalent to three acres of unirrigated land. Provided that no Khatedar tenant being a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe shall so transfer his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who is not a member of a schedled caste or a scheduled tribe. "

(2.) FROM the perusal of the proviso to section 42 it is evident that the proviso puts a prohibition to the efffect that no Khatedar tenant being a mem-ber of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe shall transfer his interest in the whole or part of his holding to any person who is not a member of the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In the present case indisputably the sale was made by a scheduled caste member in favoue of a person who is neither a member of scheduled caste nor scheduled tribe.