Honble SHETHNA,J.– On two grounds the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.4; (i) that the installments were not paid regularly in time and, (ii) that the petitioner has mortgaged 15 bighas of land to non- petitioner no.5. (2). Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the `Act) clearly provides that, ``Sale, gift or bequest of Khatedari rights by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste is void. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a Scheduled Caste person and has mortgaged the land in question to respondent no.5, who is admittedly a non-scheduled caste person. By the impugned order at Annex.1, the respondent no.4 found that the petitioner committed breach of two conditions, (i) not paying the installments regularly and (ii) that he mortgaged the land to respondent no.5, therefore, the allotment of land in question was cancelled. (3). Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that though the petitioner failed to make the installments regularly in time but ultimately before passing the order the petitioner paid up all the installments. If the allotment of petitioner was cancelled on this ground alone then perhaps this Court would have considered this submission, but the fact that the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste community mortgaged the land to respondent no.5 who is a non- scheduled caste person that fact itself would be sufficient to cancel the allotment. (4). The submission of Mr. Lodha was that such mortgage was void in the eye of law in view of the provisions of Indian Contract Act. This submission of Mr. Lodha is good in case where the suit is filed. (5). Mr. Lodha then submitted that there was no proof about the document of mortgage. According to him, the document produced by non-petitioner no.5 was not a genuine document. It was only a certified true copy of Oath Commissioner. This very submission was made before the courts below which was negatived by both the Courts below on the ground that it is not necessary to produce the original document. I fully agree with the reasoning assigned by the courts below. The said copy was attested by IIIrd class Magistrate and Oath Commissioner. This very submission was made before the courts below which was negatived by both the Courts below on the ground that it is not necessary to produce the original document. I fully agree with the reasoning assigned by the courts below. The said copy was attested by IIIrd class Magistrate and Oath Commissioner. In fact, it was the case of non-petitioner no.5 before the respondent no.4 that she came in possession under the said contract deed. (6). Thus, it is clear that petitioner committed breach while transferring the land by way of mortgage, therefore, allotment was rightly cancelled. (7). When the courts below have concurrently found against the petitioner on this ground then this Court will not interfere in its powers either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. (8). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.