JUDGMENT 1. - Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act provides for restriction of sale, gifts and bequest by a khatadar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his holding. Such a transfer shall be void if such a sale gift or bequest is made by a member of the Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or by member of the Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of scheduled tribe. 2. The object of section is to bring reform economically, socially and also to protect the khatadar tenant. 3. Petitioners, who are not Scheduled Castes, purchased 12 bighas and 11 biswas of land from the father of respondents Nos. 2 and 6, who were scheduled caste. Such a sale deed was void in view of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 4. The Tehsildar filed an application under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act against the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Srikaranpur, stating that the land in dispute was in the khatadari of Diwana Ram Meghwansi (Scheduled Caste). He sold it to the petitioners on 19-7-71, who were not Scheduled Caste, in violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 5. The application filed by the Tehsildar was converted into a suit. Petitioners filed their written statements. It was stated that vendors were not Scheduled caste. There was no violation of Section 42 of the Act. They had been in possession for the last 20 years and the application was barred by limitation. They could not be ejected on the basis of valid sale deed which has not been cancelled so far. In support of their case, they led evidence as well. The Sub-Divisional Officer decreed the suit on 30-12-71 holding that the vendors were scheduled caste and, whereas, petitioners (vendees) were not. The sale deed was invalid in view of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. 6. The petitioners filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar. It was dismissed. They filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. It too was dismissed. Thus, this writ petition. 7. Section 175 of the Act deals with the consequences of illegal transfer or sub-let-ting. 6. The petitioners filed appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar. It was dismissed. They filed second appeal before the Board of Revenue. It too was dismissed. Thus, this writ petition. 7. Section 175 of the Act deals with the consequences of illegal transfer or sub-let-ting. According to it, if a tenant transfers or sub-lets, or executes an instrument purporting to transfer or sub-let, the whole or any part of his holding, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the transferee or sub-lessee or the purported transferee or sub-lessee has entered upon or is in possession of such holding or such part in pursuance of such transfer or sub-lease, both the tenant and any person who may have thus, obtained or may thus be in possession of the holding or any part of the holding, shall on the application of the land holder, be liable to ejectment from the area so transferred. 8. In view of this provision, the order of eviction was passed. All the three Authorities have recorded categorical findings of facts that the petitioners were not members of the Scheduled Caste, whereas their vendors were Scheduled Castes. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not the case of the petitioner that this finding is based on no evidence or on misreading of evidence. 9. On the question of limitation, it was held that the sale deed was executed on 19-7-71, and the application under Section 175 was filed in the year 1976. It was within 12 years of limitation prescribed under the Act. The application was not barred by limitation. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******