JUDGMENT 1. 1. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order passed by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan in Appeal No. 118/84, of district Bharatpur. The Board of Revenue had set-aside the order of Revenue Appellate Authority, Annexure 3, passed in Appeal No. 200/1982 on 19th of April, 1984. The petitioners are the successors of one Kundan, a Chamar by caste (hereinafter called 'Kundan Harijan') whereas the private respondents are the legal heirs of another Kundan, a Gurjar by caste (hereinafter called 'Kundan Gurjar'). The dispute relates to Khasra No. 67; measuring 4 bighas and 6 biswas of Singrawali situated at Tehsil Weir district Bharatpur. A suit was filed by Kundan Gurjar for declaration and permanent injunction on 17th August 1962, against Kundan Harijan on the ground that this Kundan Gurjar was in actual cultivating possession of the land in dispute and other Kundan Harijan s/o Mangal and his sons etc. had threatened the dispossession of the plaintiff. The suit was admittedly filed before the Court of S.D.O. Bayana. During the pendency of the suit, the alleged compromise was said to have been filed before the S.D.O. Date of the compromise is 29th July 1966. On the said compromise the S.U.O. had passed an order dated 20th August, 1966, decreeing the suit. Kundan Harijan had died. The present petitioners filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bharatpur in the year 1978. No decree was attached. It was revealed that the trial Court had not framed the decree at all and therefore, a direction was given to the trial Court to frame the decree. The decree was ultimately framed on 18th December 1983. Appeal was continued. The Revenue Appellate Authority vide Annexure 3 set-aside the order of the S.D.O. The Revenue Appellate Authority held that from the revenue record it was clear that from Samvat 2010 to 2014 Kundan Harijan was in possession. However, for the subsequent year 2016 and 2017 Kundan Gurjar had been entered in place of Kundan Harij in. An application was moved by Kundan Harijan for correction of revenue record. The revenue record was ultimately corrected by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 14 April 1963, meaning thereby that on the appointed date in the year 1959-60, and even prior to that Kundan Harijan was deemed to be entered in the revenue record. An application was moved by Kundan Harijan for correction of revenue record. The revenue record was ultimately corrected by the Revenue Appellate Authority vide its order dated 14 April 1963, meaning thereby that on the appointed date in the year 1959-60, and even prior to that Kundan Harijan was deemed to be entered in the revenue record. Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act created a bar for transfer of the land in possession of a Scheduled Caste to Non-Scheduled Caste. It was held by the Revenue Appellate Authority that by no means even by a compromise decree a Transfer of land can be held to be valid one. The land could not be entered in the name of Kundan Gurjar. This order of the Revenue Appellate Authority Annexure 3 was challenged by the legal heirs of Kundan Gurjar before the Board of Revenue and the Board of Revenue, vide Annexure 4 had set-aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and restored the order passed by the S.D.O. The Board of Revenue has primarily decided the case against the petitioners on two grounds i.e. on the point of limitation and secondly on the point of the alleged compromise. 2. An argument is being raised by the counsel for the petitioners that so far the point of limitation is concerned, for the reason that decree itself was prepared in December 1983, there was dearly no occasion for the petitioners to file a complete appeal even though, it is stated that the appeal had been filed in the year 1978. It is stated even if there is any delay that delay was condonable on the ground that the decree was made available in the year 1983 and in any case decree was not in existence in the year 1978 or immediately after passing of the decree of the trial Court vide Annexure 1. On the second point, the counsel for the petitioners has stated that the relevant entries in the revenue record were in favour of Kundan Harijan and as such land belonging to a Harijan Scheduled Caste and even by a compromise decree, the land could not have been transferred or entered in the name of Kundan Gurjar a Non-scheduled Caste. On the second point, the counsel for the petitioners has stated that the relevant entries in the revenue record were in favour of Kundan Harijan and as such land belonging to a Harijan Scheduled Caste and even by a compromise decree, the land could not have been transferred or entered in the name of Kundan Gurjar a Non-scheduled Caste. To support this proposition, counsel for the petitioners relies on a judgment of S.B. reported in 1983 RRD 159= 1982 RLR 673 Balu v. Birda , wherein it had been held by this Court that word 'transfer' as used in proviso to section 42 is to be treated as comprehensive and even if agricultural land in Khatedari of S.C. or S.T. by compromise decree, declared in favour of non-S.C/. or non-S.T., it would still fall within the mischief of prohibitory transfer under section 42. I am in full agreement with the judgment of Balu v. Birda. The limitation was condoned by the Appellate Authority for the reasons given therein. If the decree itself is not framed and when the decree is framed the party filing the appeal shall be entitled to the period till that decree is obtained or the time is taken in obtaining the judgment and decree. It is settled law that no appeal is competent until and unless it is accompanied with the certified copy of the decree. In such situation, I am of the opinion that the Board of Revenue had erred in law in reversing the order Annexure 3 passed by the Revenue Appeallate Authority. 3. In the present case, I set-aside the order Annexure 4 passed by the Board of Revenue but it has also been pointed at the time of arguments that the suit itself was not filed before the Competent Authority. As per Schedule 3, Item No. 5 of the Tenancy Act, the suit is to be filed before the Court of Assistant Collector and Assistant Collector has been defined under the Tenancy Act, under Section 5(4) to mean as an Assistant Collector appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, or under any other law for the time being in force. S.D.O. has also been defined in Sub-Section (40) of Section 5. S.D.O. has also been defined in Sub-Section (40) of Section 5. Both the definitions read as under: 5.(4) "Assistant Collector" shall mean an Assistant Collector appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949 or under any other law for the time being in force". 5.(40) "Sub-Divisional Officer" shall mean an Assistant Collector placed in charge of one or more sub-divisions under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, or under any other law for time being in force; and includes for the purpose of Chapter III-B, an Assistant Collector in respect of all the sub-divisions in the district where he is posted for the time being." 4. Even though the S.D.O. might have been conferred with the powers of the Assistance Collector but from the order Annexure 1, it is very clear that the compromise was not filed before the Assistant Collector but was filed before the S.D.O. The order has also been passed by the S.D.O. Even the S.D.O. was exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, it should have been mentioned in the order that he was exercising the powers of Assistant Collector. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the S.D.O. was authorised under the Notification to pass such an order. For all purposes the compromise Annexure 1 and order Annexure 2 were not filed before the Assistant Collector and thus the very filing of the suit before the S.D.O. or any orders passed by the S.D.O. were without competence and without jurisdiction and therefore, all subsequent orders passed or appealed against such an order, shall fall automatically. The consequent result would be that suit of the respondents filed by the deceased Kundan Gurjar had not been filed before the Competent Court. 5. For the reasons mentioned above none of the orders Annexures 1, 2 and 3 have been passed in accordance with law and are set-aside. However, the parties are at liberty to start fresh round to get their case determined if so advised by approaching the Competent Court of jurisdiction if legally permitted. The writ petition is disposed of.Petition Disposed of. *******