JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner had purchased agricultural land comprising in Khasra No. 649 admeasuring 4 Bighas and 2 Biswas and in Khasra No. 651 admeasuring 6 Bighas and 18 Biswas situate at Village-Panmodi, Tehsil-Pratapgarh, from Nathu and Nanu by caste-Chamar in S.Y. 2007. Mutation of this land was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and the entry to that effect was made vide Ex. 1 in the year 1957 by the then Tehsildar Pratapgarh. On December 16, 1977 the then Tehsildar made a report to the Additional Collector, Chittorgarh that the purchase of land by Ratan Lal was from the members of the Schedule Caste and was as such in violation of section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter). The Additional Collector found force in the report and after issuing notices to the vendors and vendee and hearing Ratan Lal, opined that the Tehsildar had committed error in mutating land in the name of Ratan Lal on the basis of possession since S.Y. 2007. That, the transaction, even if any, was in violation of the specific provision in Section 42 of the Act. As such, the Additional Collector vide Ex. 2 dated December 16,1977 made a reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside the mutation in the name of Ratan Lal and vesting the land in the state and handing over its possession to it. The Board of Revenue while deciding the two references, one of which relates to the matter referred to above, agreed with the opinion of the Additional Collector and held that there being restriction for selling land by a member of Schedule Caste to a non- schedule caste person, the transaction was illegal and as such the mutation on basis of possession prior to the enforcement of the Act could not have been made. In view of that conclusion the learned member of the Board vide order Ex.3 dated June 5,1979 set aside the mutation in the name of petitioner Ratan Lal. Ratan Lal filed a review petition on the ground that the land was purchased by him much before the enactment of the Act and therefore, mutation by delay would not affect his right. The review petition was dismissed vide order Ex.4. dated January 7, 1981. Ratan Lal filed a review petition on the ground that the land was purchased by him much before the enactment of the Act and therefore, mutation by delay would not affect his right. The review petition was dismissed vide order Ex.4. dated January 7, 1981. Feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid proceedings and the orders, petitioner Ratan Lal has invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for quashing of the orders of Reference Ex.2 dated December 16, 1977, the order passed by the Board of Revenue Ex.3 dated June 5, 1979 allowing the Reference and the order Ex. 4 dated January 7,1981 dismissing the review petition. 2. There is no dispute on the point that the land in dispute was purchased by Ratan Lal, a non-Schedule caste person from Schedule caste persons. The mutation being sanctioned and made on May 28, 1957 vide Ex. 1 is also not disputed. The pertinent question calling for answer is whether the then Tehsildar was in error in allowing mutation in the name of the petitioner after Section 42 of the Act coming into force in the year 1956. Section 42 of the Act prohibited sale transaction of agricultural land between a schedule caste person and a non - scheduled caste person. This section subsequently underwent further change in the year 1964 and such a transaction was made void abinitio. Presently we are only concerned with the position of law as it stood in the year 1957 when the land was mutated in favour of Ratan Lal. Even at that time there was restriction on such a transaction and in case the transaction is in the year of mutation, then the mutation order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand if the sale transaction was prior to the enactment of Section 42 and in pursuance of such a transaction Ratan Lal was put in possession of the land, then the mutation would not be taken to be simply on the basis of possession, rather it would be in pursuance of sale transaction prior to Section 42 of the Act being inserted in the Act. 3. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the land in S.Y. 2007, whereas the tenancy law came into force in the S.Y. 2012 i.e. in the year 1955 and Section 42 of the Act was inserted in the year 1956 and therefore the sale transaction between him and Nathu and Nanu would not be hit by Section 42 of Act. 4. Mr. T.S. Champawat, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that it was after due inquiry that the Tehsildar had sanctioned mutation and his opinion is based on the result of the inquiry which is evident from the endorsement on the back side of the document of mutation Ex.1. 5. Mr. R.P. Dave, learned Additional Government Advocate while repelling the contention of Mr. Champawat submitted that in case the sale transaction had taken place prior to the enactment of Section 42 of the Act, the mutation could have been done at any time but his contention is that in the present case the then Tehsildar had mutated the land only on the basis of possession and therefore, the argument of Mr. Champawat that the mutation was on the basis of sale transaction having taken place in S.Y. 2007 has no force. 6. There is no dispute on the point that the land was purchased and the vendors have not appeared in response of the notice to refute the case of the petitioner that the sale was in S.Y. 2007. In case sale was prior to Section 42 of the Act coming into force then merely on the ground that the petitioner did not get the land mutated in his name upto 1957 will not weaken his case. However, if there is no material to suggest that the sale was in S.Y. 2007 then the finding that the sale was in flagrant violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act is correct. In Ex. 1, there is a reference of the contention of the petitioner that he was in possession of the land since long and no reference about his purchasing the land. There is a nothing to that effect in the reverse of the mutation order which mentions that the land was in possession of the petitioner initially in his capacity as a mortagee and thereafter he had purchased the land on Baisak Sudi 14 in S.Y. 2007 for consideration of Rs. There is a nothing to that effect in the reverse of the mutation order which mentions that the land was in possession of the petitioner initially in his capacity as a mortagee and thereafter he had purchased the land on Baisak Sudi 14 in S.Y. 2007 for consideration of Rs. 1200/- and that Ratan Lal was in possession of the land and therefore, there was no difficulty in mutating the land in his favour. It has been reiterated that as the sale was in S.Y. 2007 and the purchaser was in possession, the aarazi of the land in two Khasras is sanctioned to be mutated in the name of Ratan Lal. It was in pursuance of that report and conclusion that the land was mutated vide Ex.l. 7. In view of this endorsement, it cannot be said that the then Tehsildar had not made any inquiry into the matter regarding the date of the purchase and sanctioned mutation only on the basis of possession. The endorsement of the fact of the purchase being in S.Y. 2007 and the opinion that as such there could not be any difficulty in mutation spells out the anxiety of the Tehsildar to find out whether the sale transaction was prior to the enactment of Section 42 of the Act. When the then Tehsildar had satisfied himself about the fact of sale transaction, again re-opening of the matter was not called for so as to cause the reference to the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue accepting the same. In view of our discussion and there being material available on record that the sale was effected in S.Y. 2007 and it was on the basis of that sale mutation was made, we consider it proper to set aside the impugned orders. 8. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The order Ex. 2 dated December 16, 1977 made by the Additional Collector Chittorgarh, the order Ex.3 dated June 5, 1979 allowing reference and the Order Ex. 4 dated January 7, 1981 rejecting the review petition are set aside.Petition allowed. *******