Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner belonging to a non scheduled caste filed a suit for the land in question against the present respondents no.4, 5 and 6 who belong to scheduled caste for declaration and injunction which was compromised on 25.6.60 by the Court and the petitioner was declared khatedar tenant of the land in question. (2). Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short``the Act) came into force with effect from 15.10.55. Sec. 42 of the Act at that time was as under:- ``Sec. 42 Sale or gift - Except with the general or special permission of the State Government, no Khatedar tenant shall have the right to transfer by sale or gift his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who at the date of such transfer is already in possession of land which together with the land so transferred will exceed 90 acres of unirrigated or 30 acres of irrigated land. Explanation - If such land is partly irrigated and partly unirrigated, one acre of irrigated land shall, for calculating the area of land for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be equivalent to three acres of unirrigated land. (3). Section 42 was then amended by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act No. 28 of 1956 which came into force on 22.9.56 whereby the following proviso was added to Section 42 of the Act which is as under:- ``Provided that no Khatedar tenant being a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe shall so transfer his interest in the whole or a part of his holding to any person who is not a member of a scheduled case or a scheduled tribe. (4). Under the aforesaid proviso to Section 42 of the Act, no khatedar tenant being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe can transfer his interest in whole or in part of his holding to any other person who is a member of non-Scheduled Caste or non-Scheduled Tribe. (5). Later on by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1964 which came into force with effect from 1.5.1964, following changes were made in Section 42 which is as under :- ``42. (5). Later on by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1964 which came into force with effect from 1.5.1964, following changes were made in Section 42 which is as under :- ``42. General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest- The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if- (a) it is not of a survey number except when the area of the survey number so sold, gifted or bequeathed is in excess of the minimum area prescribed for the purpose of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 53, in which case also the area not transferred shall not be a fragment; Provided that this restriction shall not apply if the area so transferred becomes merged into a continuous survey number: Provided further that this restriction shall not apply if the sale, gift or bequest is of the entire interest of a tenant in the survey number; (b) such sale, gift or Request is by a member of a Scheduled Caste 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 not a member of the scheduled Tribe; (c) made by a person enjoying khatedar rights since before the commencement of the Act in the project areas referred to in the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 or in the Rajasthan Canal area mentioned in sec. 15-A, and any transfer by sale or gift made by any such person after the commencement of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Ordinance No. 2 of 1960 shall be null and void". (6). Thus, under Section 42(b) of the Act, sale, gift or bequest by a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe person in favour of non-Scheduled Caste or non-Scheduled Tribe person was totally prohibited. (7). Under Section 232 of the Act, the Collector has power to make reference to the Board or Revenue if he is dis-satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order or decree passed by the subordinate courts. (7). Under Section 232 of the Act, the Collector has power to make reference to the Board or Revenue if he is dis-satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order or decree passed by the subordinate courts. Initially the Collector was not empowered to make a reference against the order or decree under Section 232 of the Act but the words ``order or decree have been added under Section 232 of the Act by Section 5 of the Rajasthan Act No. 14 of 1991 published in Rajasthan Gazette dated 5.10.81. Thus, till 1981 the Collector was not empowered to make reference against the order or decree passed by the subordinate courts even if he was satisfied about the propriety or legality or validity of the orders passed by the subordinate courts but with the amendment in Section 232 of the Act in 1981, the Collector was empowered. (8). As stated earlier, proviso to Section 42 of the Act was amended by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Second Amendment) Act No. 28 of 1956 which came into force w.e. from 22.9.56 for the protecting the rights of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe persons which was further amended by the Rajasthan Tenancy (Amendment) Act No. 12 of 1964 by which a mandate was given that the land of the Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe persons cannot be transferred by any means of sale, gift or bequest to a non-scheduled caste or non-scheduled tribe person. However, the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe persons could apply to the Collector for setting aside such decree only after the amendment of Section 232 of the Act which came into force from 1981. When this was made known gradually to the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe persons of the State, they started to approach the Collector and accordingly in this case, the present respondents nos. 4 to 6 approached the Collector in 1986 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 25.6.60 on the ground that when the decree was passed, the respondent no.6 was minor and they were in possession of the land. 4 to 6 approached the Collector in 1986 for setting aside the compromise decree dated 25.6.60 on the ground that when the decree was passed, the respondent no.6 was minor and they were in possession of the land. The Collector was satisfied about the legality and validity of the decree passed in 1960 whereby the khatedari rights were transferred to the petitioner found to be nullity, therefore, the Collector by his impugned order dated 20.3.89 (Annex.4) made a reference to the Board of Revenue which was accepted by the Board of Revenue by its impugned order dated 10.7.89 (Annex.5). The same is challenged in this petition by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. (9). Learned counsel Mr. Samdaria for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was a delay of about 27 years in making the reference by the Collector before the Board of Revenue, therefore, on this ground alone, the order of Collector making reference to the Board of Revenue and the order of Board of Revenue accepting the reference may be set aside. In support of his submission, Mr. Samdaria has relied upon a judgment in the case of Anandi Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (1). That was a case of allotment of land. That judgment will have no application to the present case. It cannot be said that there was a delay of 27 years in making the reference because as stated earlier, the Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe persons could not approach the Collector for making reference under Section 232 of the Act till 1981 because there was no such provision under Section 232 to make reference against the illegal decree or order passed by the subordinate court. It was only after the amendment made in Section 232 in the year 1981 that it was possible and when these poor and illiterate Scheduled caste or Scheduled tribe persons of the State gradually came to know about their rights then they started to apply before the Collector for setting aside such illegal decree or orders passed by the subordinate courts. In this case they have approached the Collector in 1986 i.e. within five years from. The amendment made in Section 232 in the year 1981. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a gross delay. In this case they have approached the Collector in 1986 i.e. within five years from. The amendment made in Section 232 in the year 1981. Thus, it cannot be said that there was a gross delay. (10) That apart, the delay in such type of cases when the decree is ex-facie bad and cannot be sustained, then the delay should never come in they way. It may be stated that after the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came into force in 1955, immediately the Government realised the need to protect the rights of the scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe persons and, therefore, by an Amendment Act of 1956 first introduced proviso to Section 42 whereby the khatedar tenants of the Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe were prohibited from transferring their interest in whole or in part of their holdings to any other persons belonging to non-Scheduled caste or non-Scheduled tribe. Thus, in this case the decree passed in 1960 was bad in law and illegal which was rightly declared to be nullity by the Board of Revenue by accepting the reference. Later on, the State further realised the difficulty and found that such decree would be voidable and not void, therefore, by amendment in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act in Section 42 of the Act, amended the Section 42 with effect from 1.5.64 whereby the transfer of land of Scheduled caste or scheduled tribe persons to the non-Scheduled caste or non-Scheduled tribe persons by way of sale, gift or bequest or in any manner was declared to be void. The Board of Revenue has clearly found in its impugned order that such decree passed in 1960 was in clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Therefore, this Court would not interfere with such orders in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. (11). Learned counsel Mr. Samdariya for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon the judgment of Single Bench of this Court in the case of Sawa Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (2). The said judgment is based upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pt. Triveni Shyam Sharma vs. Board of Revenue, Raj. (3). On facts of this case, the above judgments have no application. As the decree was passed in 1960 it was voidable. (12). & Ors. (2). The said judgment is based upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pt. Triveni Shyam Sharma vs. Board of Revenue, Raj. (3). On facts of this case, the above judgments have no application. As the decree was passed in 1960 it was voidable. (12). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Stay granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.