JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated August 26, 1976. 2. Brief facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that a piece of land bearing Khasra No. 254/5, measuring 3 bighas 10 biswas situated in Sikar, was initially shown in the revenue records in the name of Moonga son of Padma Balai, a member of Schedule caste. On the death of Munga, the land was mutated in the name of Partu Ram and Moolaram who were also members of the scheduled caste. They executed a sale deed in favour of the non-petitioner No. 1 D.H. Well for this land on November 29, 1962. The mutation was effected by the Tehsildar Sikar on March 8, 1963, in favour of Shri Well. On May 14, 1965, Shti Well sold this land to the non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Govind Singh. A mutation in favour of Gobind Singh was also granted by the Tehsildar on 28.9.65. When these facts were brought to the notice of the Distt. Administration that a land belonging to the persons of scheduled caste has been sold to a person who is not a member of the scheduled caste and that the sale is void ab initio in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, a reference under section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for quashing the mutation was made by the learned Additional Collector, Sikar before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue rejected the reference. It is against this order of rejecting the reference that the present writ petition is directed. 3. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, Shri Govind Singh, a caveat was filed. The respondent No. 2 has contended that the writ petition is per se not maintainable. It was contended that against the order of the Board of Revenue dated August 26, 1976, the writ petition was filed on April 28, 1977. It was contended that the remedy by way of writ petition has been sought after a great delay, and that the petitioner being faulty of laches, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. It was contended that the remedy by way of writ petition has been sought after a great delay, and that the petitioner being faulty of laches, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this score alone. It was further contended that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy available by filing a special appeal under section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act before a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue against the order of the learned Single Member. It was, therefore, contended that as petitioner has not exhausted the remedy available, the writ petition should be held to be not maintainable. It was further contended that initially the sale deed is alleged to have been executed on November 29, 1962, and that the remedies under section 175 or Section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act have become time barred, and that this court shall not pass an order which would not be capable of being executed. It was also contended that mutation proceedings are only fiscal in nature showing the possession of a person liable to pay land revenue and do not determine the rights of the parties. It was contended that by merely cancelling the mutation order the original khatedar could not be put into possession without seeking the remedy either under sections 175 or 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, it was contended that the delay in filing the writ petition is not inordinate, and that after obtaining the necessary copies and after getting the case examined by the departments concerned, the writ petition was filed without any further delay. It was also contended that no special appeal under section 10 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act could lie before the Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Member in view of Section 77 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It was also contended that as the order of mutation sale which is void ab initio, the order deserves to be quashed. 5. Land Revenue Act could lie before the Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Member in view of Section 77 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It was also contended that as the order of mutation sale which is void ab initio, the order deserves to be quashed. 5. Section 42, of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, provides that the sale, gift or bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part C shall be void, if such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of a Schedule Case 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 is a not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. 6. Section 133 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provides that every person obtaining possession by succession, transfer or otherwise of any property or other right or interest in any land or the profit thereof, which is required by this Act or any rules made thereunder to be recorded in the annual registers shall bring the fact to the notice of the village Patwari and report it to the Tehsildar of the Tehsil in which such land is situated either direct or through the village Patwari or Land Records Inspector, within three months from the date on which he obtains such possession. 7. Section 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provides that on receiving such report, he shall make such inquiry as appears necessary and in undisputed cases, decide the dispute if be is competent, otherwise refer the dispute to an officer who is competent to take a decision. 8. Section 136 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act provides the procedure for settling the disputes. For effecting mutation a procedure is laid down in Rules 119 to 148 of the Rajasthan Land Records Rules. Section 23 (2) read with Item 7 of the First Schedule and Sections 133 to 135 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act read with Rules 119 to 148 and 154 to 160 of the Raj. Land Records Rules show that mutation is a judicial proceedings and is intended to record the changes consequent to succession, transfer or otherwise. Though mutation is a fiscal proceedings but after a 5 apse of time it becomes the basis for bringing the permanent records upto date. Land Records Rules show that mutation is a judicial proceedings and is intended to record the changes consequent to succession, transfer or otherwise. Though mutation is a fiscal proceedings but after a 5 apse of time it becomes the basis for bringing the permanent records upto date. The restrictions contained in Section 42 of the Raj. Tenancy Act is one intended to safeguard the interest of the weaker sections of the society. It was intended to protect the weaker section of the society from being exploited. The transfer in violation of section 42 of the Raj. Tenancy Act is void ad initio. By virtue of Section 9 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act the power of general superintendence and control over ail the revenue courts and over all revenue officers is vested in the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue cannot bean idle spectator to a mutation order which is manifestly erroneous and is against the mandatory provisions of section 42 of the Raj. Tenancy Act. No period of limitation has been prescribed for making a reference under section 82 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act. The power of making a reference under section 82 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act, which have been vested in the Collector is of an extraordinary nature. If the Collector is of the opinion that any revenue court subordinate to him acted illegally or against the provisions of law, a reference can be made to the Board of Revenue for setting aside that order. 9. In this writ petition, no facts have been laid before us on the basis of which it could be said whether the remedy under Section 175 or 183 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act is barred by time. Moreover, it is not the subject matter in dispute on which this court is called upon to adjudicate. If any action under Section 175 or 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is taken, the appropriate court would go into the matter and decide the question raised therein. The reference under section 82 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act can by no stretch of imagination be said to have become incompetent merely because the remedy under section 175 or section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has become time barred. The mutation order only register a factum of transfer of possession on the basis of sale deed. The reference under section 82 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act can by no stretch of imagination be said to have become incompetent merely because the remedy under section 175 or section 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act has become time barred. The mutation order only register a factum of transfer of possession on the basis of sale deed. The sale deed being void ab initio by virtue of Section 42 of the Raj. Tenancy Act, the mutation orders could not have been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Raj. Land Revenue Act and the Rajasthan Land Records Rules. 10. The learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted before us that no steps have been taken by the State either under Section 175 or Section 183 of the Raj. Tenancy Act. The period of limitation is twelve years. The original sale deed is dated 29/11/1962. Without expressing any opinion on merits regarding limitation, prima facie, it appears that the remedies under section 175 or Section 183 are barred by time. The State or the original Khatedar can be put into possession only through the due process of law. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the cancellation of the mutation orders is not going to achieve the desired results. The State appears to be guilty of extreme laches. 11. The writ petition has also been filed after a delay of eight months. The remedy of filing a special appeal under section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act has not been availed of. The Board of Revenue has declined to interfere in the reference proceedings. 12. For the reasons stated above, we do not feel inclined to invoke our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. *******