Honble SHARMA, J.—Sale, gift or bequest made by a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in favour of person, who is not a person of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is void in view of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act). Section 42 was substituted on May 1, 1964. The question which arises in this appeal is whether Section 42 could be made applicable retrospectively to the sale, gift or bequest made prior to May 1, 1964? 2. This question emerges in the circumstances set out below : "The appellant filed suit under Sections 88 and 188 of the act in the Court of Assistant Collector, Dudu. The suit was decreed ex-parte on March 31, 1993. On appeal by the respondents, the Revenue Appellate Authority set aside the decree. The appellant preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. Learned Single Judge also dismissed he writ petition on the ground that mutation made in favour of the appellants was void, ab initio since the land in question belonged to members of SC/ST and it could not have been transferred to person belonging to other class. Hence, this appeal. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the transfer of land was made in favour of appellants in the year 1958 and provisions contained in Section 42 of the Act could not be made applicable with retrospective effect. 4. A look at Section 42 of the Act goes to show that it was substituted by Section 3 of Rajasthan Act No. 12 of 1964 and it was published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-A extra ordinary dated May 1, 1964. Section 42 reads as under : "42. 4. A look at Section 42 of the Act goes to show that it was substituted by Section 3 of Rajasthan Act No. 12 of 1964 and it was published in Rajasthan Gazette Part IV-A extra ordinary dated May 1, 1964. Section 42 reads as under : "42. General restriction on sale, gift and bequest : The sale, gift or bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of the holding shall be void if— xxx (b) such sale, gift or bequest 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 : (bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b) is by a member of Saharia Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the said Saharia Tribe : (c) xxx" 5. This fact is not in dispute that land was transferred by members of a SC/ST in favour of appellants in the year 1958 when Section 42 was not in existence in the form as incorporated in 1964. 6. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Pt. Triveni Shyam vs. Board of Revenue (1964 RRD 342) indicated that amendment made in Section 42 in the year 1964 could not have been given retrospective effect. It was indicated that once propriety right was vested in the property in the person prior to amendment of the Act, he should not be deprived of the same by law. 7. Since, this legal position escaped notice of the learned Single Judge, we have no option but to set aside the impugned order. 8. For these reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dated January 15, 2000 of the learned Single Judge. We remit the case to the learned Single Judge with the request to decide it afresh on merits considering the legal position as indicated above. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on May 28, 2008. There shall be no order as to costs.