JUDGMENT 1. - Hari Ram respondent No. 4 was a non-claimant allottee of 15 bighas of lands in stone No. 65/140, Chak No. 15 KRW, killa Nos. 1 to 15 under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (in short 'the Act'). The allotment was made in his favour prior to 1968 and the possession was handed over to him but the actual Sanad was not issued in his favour till 10-3-70. He transferred his rights in the lands in favour of one Shri Ghasi Ram son of Shri Banna Ram by caste Meghwal, resident of Khat Sajwar vide registered sale deed dated 6-8-68. Shri Ghasi Ram entered into cultivatory possession of the said lands which were formerly Khatedari lands of Shri Hari Ram on the date of sale i.e. 6-8-68 and continued in cultivatory possession of the said lands till 26-3-69, the day on which he transferred the said lands in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale. The Irrigation Department entered his name and girdawari was made in his favour since then. Demand notices for irrigation charges were issued in his name. Water slips were issued in his name and he paid water charges vide receipts Annx. 3 to Annx. 8. The petitioner in the year 1978-79 gave the lands on one year's 'theka' to Najar Singh, respondent No. 5. Hari Ram filed an application on 14-6-1978 before the Collector, Ganganagar for putting him back in possession of the said lands on the ground that his lands had been trespassed by Shri Najar Singh. The Collector forwarded the application to the Tehsildar who issued notices to the petitioner and Najar Singh. In those proceedings the statements of the petitioner as well as Najar Singh and Hari Ram were recorded on 8-8-78. The Tehsildar submitted his report to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh. The Sub Divisional Officer treated this application under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and issued notices to the petitioner, Najar Singh and Hari Ram. He himself recorded statement of Hari Ram on 3-9-80 and inspected site on 5-9-80. Statements of Jora Singh, Manphool Singh and the petitioner were recorded at the site. Then he passed an order under Section 183-B on 29-9-83 holding Hari Ram as Ger-khatedar tenant. As such the transfer made by him in favour of Ghasi Ram was held to be illegal. Statements of Jora Singh, Manphool Singh and the petitioner were recorded at the site. Then he passed an order under Section 183-B on 29-9-83 holding Hari Ram as Ger-khatedar tenant. As such the transfer made by him in favour of Ghasi Ram was held to be illegal. He passed an order that Hari Ram be put in possession of the lands. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was dismissed vide Annx. 10 dated 24-11-83. Then a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 24-11-1988 vide Annx. 11. He has challenged these orders in this writ petition on the grounds that an application under Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act can be filed only by a person entitled to the possession of the land against the trespasser. The scope of Section 183 is limited to the cases where a person trespass the land of the scheduled caste persons. But if a scheduled caste person voluntarily hands over the possession to a third party of his land is not entitled to approach the statutory authorities under Section 183-B of this Act. It has also been challenged on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to register the application under Section 183-B. The orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority and the Board of Revenue suffer from illegality because they also assumed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to proceed under Section 183-B. The conclusion of these Courts that Hari Ram was Ger-khatedar tenant is not correct because the admitted fact is that Hari Ram was an allottee of the lands in dispute under the provisions of the Act. Hari Ram Had acquired rights under the said Act and Sanad was issued in his favour on 10-3-70. The assumption of the Revenue Board that he could not be a Khatedar tenant before 10-3-70 is erroneous and contrary to law. Sanad is actually a formal document. The confirmation of rights do not depend on issue of Sanad. Actually Hari Ram was an allottee under the Disabled Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act and not a Ger-Khatedar allottee as there was no such provision of Ger-Khatedar in this Act. There was no evidence on record to show the possession of Najar Singh since 1969 till 1978. The confirmation of rights do not depend on issue of Sanad. Actually Hari Ram was an allottee under the Disabled Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act and not a Ger-Khatedar allottee as there was no such provision of Ger-Khatedar in this Act. There was no evidence on record to show the possession of Najar Singh since 1969 till 1978. His possession was permissive with the permission of the petitioner which was temporary and could not confer a right in favour of Hari Ram to get the possession back from the petitioner despite the fact that Hari Ram transferred his rights in favour of Shri Ghasi Ram long back in the year 1968 by a registered sale deed. The order for eviction of the petitioner or Najar Singh was not according to law. The petitioner resumed back the possession from Shri Najar Singh during the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer and was continuously in cultivatory possession. He could not be dispossessed under Section 183-B of the Tenancy Act. The sale deeds dated 6-8-68 and 26-3-69 were not set aside by the competent Court and, therefore, they could not be ignored in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 183-B of the Tenancy Act by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer. The petitioner has been in possession of the lands and his possessory title is valid against whole world except the real owner. Hari Ram cannot be said to be a real owner after execution of sale deed in favour of Shri Ghasi Ram even assuming that the transfer of Ger-Khatedar right is void. Assuming that Hari Ram had no right to sell the lands on 6-8-68 but he acquired the same on the date of grant of Sanad i.e. 10-3-70, as such judgments stand vitiated. During the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated these grounds before me. 2. The case of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 is that before Sanad was issued he parted with the land and at that time he was not a khatedar tenant. Respondent No. 4 Hari Ram transferred the land to Ghasi Ram who in turn sold to Beekar Singh member of Scheduled Caste who held land as Benami for Shri Najar Singh Jat Sikh. There were mainly two violations of the provisions of law, (1) while Hari Ram was the Ger-Khatedar tenant. Respondent No. 4 Hari Ram transferred the land to Ghasi Ram who in turn sold to Beekar Singh member of Scheduled Caste who held land as Benami for Shri Najar Singh Jat Sikh. There were mainly two violations of the provisions of law, (1) while Hari Ram was the Ger-Khatedar tenant. He transferred the land without any authority, and (2) the transfer was to a non-scheduled Caste person which was against the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It has been further averred that there was no proof that the petitioner let out the land for a period of only one year to Hari Ram. In fact the spot inquiry and land record i.e. Khasra girdawari show that the respondent No. 4 did not have cultivatory possession for only one year but for successive years. The lower Courts have uniformly held that petitioner Beekar Singh had no authority to sale the land when he was having Khatedari rights in the land till then. He was only Ger-Khatedar tenant of the land. He got Khatedari rights on 10-3-70 but he had transferred the land as long back as in the year 1968. So the sale was not valid. Transfer of land by a Scheduled Caste person to non-Scheduled Caste was against the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Section 183-B of the Tenancy Act does not negativate the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Since the transfer was void ab initio, the possession of the transferee was as trespasser on the land. Najar Singh was in possession of the land with permission and that too temporarily but that would not absolve the violation of the provisions of law. Therefore, the ejectment was properly ordered. The petitioner was not in possession of the land but as observed by the Revenue Appellate Authority he was only a Benami purchaser as the amount of the land was actually paid by Najar Singh Jat Sikh. The possession has been restored to the original allottee namely respondent No. 4 who has moved the Sub Divisional Officer through an application that his land has been trespassed by the respondent No. 5. The findings are based on the evidence and three successive Courts have decided the matter against the petitioner. It has been therefore prayed that the petition should be dismissed. 3. The findings are based on the evidence and three successive Courts have decided the matter against the petitioner. It has been therefore prayed that the petition should be dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner sub miffed that in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1994, Bishan Paul v. Mothu Ram, it has been held that under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 title shall pass when the full price is realised and cannot be held to be in abeyance till the issue of the certificate. Therefore, when the land was sold by Hari Ram, it was a complete transfer. According to the learned counsel he could not be regarded as non-authorised person to sell the property, therefore, he was entitled to make transfer though he got Sanad on 10.3.70. He transferred the land to Ghasi Ram who in turn sold to Beekar Singh. To me the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal because on facts the lower Courts have found that Ghasi Ram sold the land to Beekar Singh, a member of Scheduled Caste, who was a Benami for Najar Singh. The tact that the petitioner was a Benami on behalf of Najar Singh Jat Sikh is a question of fact in which this Court will not peep into. The three Courts below have found the petitioner to be a Benami purchaser on behalf of Najar Singh who is a Jat Sikh. As such the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act were violated. It may be true that the original allottee got Sanad on 13-3-70 but before that he had parted with the land. But when the fact is that the land was transferred in contravention of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act as found by the Courts below that the land was sold to Beekar Singh as a Benami of Najar Singh Jat on the basis of evidence on record. I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of the three Courts below which are passed on the basis of evidence. 4. Consequently, there is no force in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******