JUDGMENT Hon'ble MATHUR, J.- These appeals are before us being referred by a Division Bench of this Court for reconsideration of the judgment given in Asuram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore, reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345. 2. To understand the issue under consideration, it may be useful to notice certain relevant statutes and the facts associated. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 3. On 30.3.1949, the State of Rajasthan was formed on integration of several independent Princely States and Chief-ships with varying levels of political, economic and social developments. At the time of formation of State, the Jagirdari system was prevailing over a huge part of available agricultural land and the tenants were not having any security of tenure and fairness of rent. The agriculture being a key factor of economic and national reconstruction, the newly formed State felt it necessary to introduce and accelerate the process of land reforms, thus, on 10.10.1955 a bill to enact the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was placed before the floor of the Rajasthan State Legislative Assembly with following statements of objects and reasons:- "Since the integration of various Sates into Rajasthan, the need for uniform Tenancy law for the whole state is being keenly felt. Very few of the integrating units had enacted tenancy laws and the diversity of conditions prevailing in different parts of Rajasthan in respect of land tenures and relations of tenants and land holders have been causing serious difficulties in administration. A bill was introduced in 1952 to remove these difficulties and to save the path of agricultural progress in the State. But as the Bill had several drafting drawbacks and public opinion received on the subject required several changes in the Bill the said was withdrawn. A new Bill has been drafted and is now introduced for consideration." 4. On 14th day of March, 1956, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") received assent of the President. As per preamble of the Act, it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to tenancy of the agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms and matters connected therewith. 5. On 14th day of March, 1956, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1955") received assent of the President. As per preamble of the Act, it was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to tenancy of the agricultural lands and to provide for certain measures of land reforms and matters connected therewith. 5. By the Act of 1955 several radical changes in the agrarian field, specially about relationship of land and tenant were introduced and those changes had their own socio economic effects, including that, every person, who was tenant of land otherwise than a sub-tenant or tenant of 'khudkasht' became khatedari tenant with heritable and transferable rights. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act abolished all payments in the form of 'lag-bag' and other cesses, prohibited premium for grant of lease, prohibited force labour on the land, made surrender of land valid only if possession is accompanied by a written application, attested by a competent authority, fixed rent in cash to be charged from sub-tenant as not more than twice the cash rent payable by the tenant in chief, fixed 1/6th of gross produce as rent in kind and made ejectment possible only through the procedure established by the Act. 6. A unique feature of the Act of 1955 is to safeguard the interest of weaker sections of the society. Sections 42, 46-A and 49-A of this Act restrict transfer of land i.e. under tenancy of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Looking to the nature of controversy involved in this appeal, it would be worth to quote the provisions referred above. "Section 42.- General restrictions on sale, gift and bequest - The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenants of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if – (a) ... daleted -w.e.f. 11.11.1992. (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a number of 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 in 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. (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. Section 46-A. Special provision for letting or subletting by members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes- Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 44, 45 and 46, no person who is a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe shall let or sublet the whole or any part of his holding under the said sections to any person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. Section 49-A . Special provision for exchange by members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 48 and 49, no tenant who is a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe shall have the right to exchange his holding under any of those sections for land which is included in the holding of a person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and an application under section 49 shall be rejected if it contravenes the provisions of this section." 7. The provisions above quoted were included under the Act of 1955 with a view to protect the tenants belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes from social injustice and all forms of exploitation and i.e. for fulfilment of directive principles enshrined under Article 46 of the Constitution of India. 8. This enactment being enlisted under Schedule IXth is also having protection as per Article 31-B of the Constitution. 9. Section 43 of the Act of 1955 provides that a usufructuary mortgage of agricultural land would stand automatically redeemed on expiry of the period mentioned therein and consideration will be deemed to have been satisfied in full without any payment whatsoever by the mortgagor. An obligation has been caste on the mortgagor to deliver possession of the mortgaged land free from all encumbrances. As regards mortgage made prior to coming into force of the Tenancy Act, provisions have been made that usufructuary mortgage of such a land shall upon the expiry of the period mentioned in the mortgage deed or 20 years from the date of execution thereof, whichever period is less to be deemed to have been satisfied in full without any payment whatsoever by the mortgagor. Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (4E) of Section 43 of the Act of 1955 provides that if a mortgage, without sufficient cause, fails to put the mortgagor in possession of the property within a period of three months as specified in sub-sec. (40), he, on conviction, would be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or fine which may extend to Rs.1000/- or both. 10. The Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974. 11. An act to make provisions to facilitate adequate flow of credit for agricultural production and development through banks and other institutional credit agencies and for matter connected therewith and/or institutional thereto came into force on 21.9.1974 in the name of "Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974" (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1974") with statement of objects and reasons, as follows:- "One of the main objectives of the legislation relating to social control of Banks in 1968 and the nationalisation of fourteen major Indian commercial Banks in 1969 was to ensure that adequate proportion of commercial Bank credit goes to the agricultural sector and other priority sectors. An examination of State Laws has shown that there are certain provisions therein which inhibit the entry of commercial Banks into the field of financing of agriculture. It will, therefore, be necessary to modify these laws for the purpose of enabling commercial banks to undertake financing of agriculture on a large scale. An expert group of constituted by the Reserve Bank of India to study the enactments have a hearing on commercial banks lending to agriculture suggested the modification of certain provisions in the State laws to facilitate the smooth and efficient operation of commercial Banks in the sphere of agriculture credit. The expert group also suggested that instead of amending the various State laws, it would be preferable if a single consolidated legislation incorporating the various amendments suggested by it is enacted. This approach not only facilitates expeditious action but also provides for laying down a clear and unambiguous statutory frame work for the agricultural credit business of commercial Banks. Further, facilities available to the cooperatives and or Land Development Banks could be extended to other institutional credit agencies too through a separate legislation. The proposed Bill is therefore being enacted to enable commercial banks and other institutional credit agencies to serve expeditiously as an effective instrument of national policy." 12. Further, facilities available to the cooperatives and or Land Development Banks could be extended to other institutional credit agencies too through a separate legislation. The proposed Bill is therefore being enacted to enable commercial banks and other institutional credit agencies to serve expeditiously as an effective instrument of national policy." 12. The Act of 1974 undergone certain important amendments under the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) (Amendment) Act, 1985 with additional statement of objects and reasons, as follows:- "In order to facilitate adequate flow of credit by commercial banks to the agriculturists, Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act; 1974 was enacted by the State Legislature on the basis of recommendations of the Talwar Committee constituted by the Central Government. In the definitions of terms "Agriculture" and "Agriculturist", as given in clauses (a) and (b) of Sec.2 of the said Act, landless labourers and rural artisans have been included on account of which a difficulty is being faced in getting the loans sanctioned to these categories of persons.. There is also no provision at present in Sec. 13 of the Act, for the recovery of loans by the banks from the guarantors of agriculturist and through sale of his movable or immovable properties which are not charged or mortgaged. It is causing difficulty in recovering the loans. Further, there is a provision in Sec. 16 of the Act for giving loans by the commercial banks through cooperative societies, which causes obstruction to some extent in the process of giving loans by the banks. In order to overcome the above difficulties, it was felt necessary to amend the Act." 13. Chapter II of the Act of 1974 prescribes rights of agriculturists to alienate land/interest in land in favour of banks while obtaining financial assistance. As per Sec. 3 of the Act aforesaid, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any custom or tradition, it shall be lawful for an agriculturist, whose rights of alienation of land or of any interest therein are restricted, to alienate the land or his interest therein, including by creation of a charge or mortgage on such land or interest in favour of a Dank for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from that bank. 14. 14. Section 13 of the Act of 1974 relates to recovery of dues of a bank through a prescribed authority and that reads as follows:- "13. Recovery of dues of a bank through a prescribed authority.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an official of the State Government notified by the State Government as the prescribed authority for the purpose of this section may, on the application of a bank, make an order on or any agriculturist or his heir or legal representative or his guarantor, directing the payment of any sum due to the bank on account of financial assistance availed of by the agriculturist, by the sale of any land or interest therein or any other immovable property, upon which the payment of such money is charged or mortgaged or any other property in his possession: Provided that no order shall be made by the prescribed authority under this sub-section for the sale of any land or any interest therein or any other immovable property upon which the payment of money is charged or mortgaged or any other property in his possession, as the case may be, unless the agriculturist or the heir or legal representative or his guarantor of the agriculturist, as the case may be, has been given an opportunity of being heard and has been served with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him to pay the amount due and default has been made in payment thereof for three months after the determination of liabilities by such authority. (2) Every order passed by the prescribed authority in term of sub-sec. (1) shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed by him in the same manner as a decree of such court. Explanation.--For the purpose of exercising powers conferred by this sub-sec., the prescribed authority shall be deemed to be a civil court. (3) Nothing in this section shall debar a bank from seeking to enforce its rights in any other manner under any other law for the time being in force." 15. Section 14 of the Act of 1974 vests a right with a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property to satisfy the money due to it. In extenso, Section 14 aforesaid is quoted below:- "14. Section 14 of the Act of 1974 vests a right with a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property to satisfy the money due to it. In extenso, Section 14 aforesaid is quoted below:- "14. Right of a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property.-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a bank shall have power to itself acquire agricultural land or interest therein or any other immovable property which has been charged or mortgaged to it by an agriculturist in respect of any financial assistance availed of by him, provided the said land or interest therein or any other immovable property has been sought to be sold by public auction and no person has offered to purchase it for a price which is sufficient to pay to the bank the money due to it. (2) A bank which acquires land or interest therein or any other immovable property in exercise of the power vested in it under sub-sec. (1) shall dispose it of by sale, within a period to be specified by the State Government in this behalf. (3) If the bank has to lease out any land acquired by it under sub-sec. (1) pending sale thereof as indicated in sub-sec. (2), the period of lease shall not exceed one year at a time and the lessee shall not acquire any interest in that property notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force. (4) A sale by a bank of land or interest therein in terms of sub-sec.(2) shall be in favour of persons as may be prescribed by the State Government under Sec.30 of this Act and shall be subject to any provisions of any law in force which may place restrictions on purchase of land by non-agriculturists or ceiling for acquisition of land or by a person not belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or fragmentation of land." 16. The State Government while exercising the powers conferred by Section 30 of the Act of 1974, framed the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1976") and as per clause (2) of sub-section (14) of Section 5, the land acquired from a person who is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe shall not be sold to persons who are not members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In view of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Act of 1974 read with Rule 5(14)(2) of the Rules of 1976, no land acquired from a member of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe can be sold to a person who is not a member of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and further that all checks and restrictions on purchase of land by a person not belonging to scheduled castes or scheduled tribes shall be applicable. This provision under the Rules is in consonance to Section 14(4) of the Act of 1974, and also makes that workable. The Facts Pertaining to Asuram's Case (AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345) 17. In the case of Asuram (supra), a prayer was made to declare subsection (4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974 ultravires of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act which restricts the sphere of transfer of land acquired by creditor of land from debtors who are members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes to the members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes only. In the case aforesaid the argument advanced was that there is a distinction between the sales carried out under Section 13 and under Section 14 of the Act which comes within the ambit of hostile discrimination in the matters of disposal of same land on the basis of methodology adopted by the bank. While there is no provision like sub-section (4) of Section 14 in Section 13 of the Act, there is no prohibition in the sphere of transfer of property under Section 13 of the Act. The Division Bench, after considering the argument, negatived the same and held as fotlows:- "4. The scrutiny of two provisions makes it clear that in a sale conducted under S.13 of the Act, no proprietary. The Division Bench, after considering the argument, negatived the same and held as fotlows:- "4. The scrutiny of two provisions makes it clear that in a sale conducted under S.13 of the Act, no proprietary. interest is acquired by the creditor-Bank in the land in question and the sale conducted under S.13 of the Act is like a sale conducted by the Court in execution of a decree in which interest of the judgment-debtor involved is transferred through the agency of the Court but such transfers are governed by the rights and obligations attached to the land of the judgment-debtor which are attached under the general law. Therefore, if the interest of the judgment-debtor is transferred under S.13 of the Act by the agency of the Bank upon obtaining an order from the Tehsildar, which is executed like a decree of Civil Court, what is really transferred through auction is the interest of the judgment-debtor though there is involvement of the Bank or the auctionee (auctioneer) and in that event, the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 affecting restrictions on the persons on whom interest of judgment-debtors can be transferred are automatically attracted. In contrast, a sale under S.14 of the Act takes o place where the Bank being of a opinion that proper market price is not being achieved/obtained in the sale executed under S.13 of the Act, it can acquire the land itself and, thereafter, it can dispose of the land of the debtor-mortgagee. Such sale by the Bank as a matter of law is transfer of Bank's own property which has been acquired by it under S.14 of the Act. However, keeping in view the basic scheme and the constitutional mandate which protracts the interests of weaker sections of the society particularly members of SC/ST and the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which puts restrictions on the alienation of the interest of the members of the SC/ST alone so that the sources of such weaker sections remains within such community and it does not go out of them, therefore, by dint of subsection (4) of S.14 of the Act, the legislative policy is maintained that interest of members of SC/ST should continue to remain with that community and it does not go out of them. In this view of the matter, we do not find anything which goes contrary to the constitutional mandate in making the provisions like S.14(4) of the Act." The facts pertaining to the present appeal and the reference made therein 18. A view absolutely in conflict with Division Bench judgment in the case of Asuram (supra) was taken by learned Single Bench of this Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1499/2002, State of Rajasthan vs. Uka & Ors., decided on 14.5.2002. In this case Uka, a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes borrowed a loan from the Land Development Bank, Branch Raniwada by mortgaging 1.28 hectares of land in khasra No.339/378. He failed to pay the loan advanced, therefore, proclamation for sale of mortgaged land was issued by the bank and the land was put to auction on 19.3.1994. A person, not belonging to Scheduled Tribes, purchased the land in auction. The land was redeemed from mortgage and was entered in the name of purchaser. The Tehsildar, Raniwada moved a reference application as per provisions of Sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to the Collector, Jalore on the ground that the sale aforesaid was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 42(b) of the Act of 1955. The Collector made a reference to the Board of Revenue by order dated 6.9.2000, but the Board of Revenue dismissed the same on 24.1.2002. A petition for writ, preferred by the State to challenge the order dated 24.1.2002 too was rejected by learned Single Judge under the judgment dated 14.5.2002. Learned Single Judge, while doing so, held as under:- "In the matter in hand, no such sale was conducted by the Khatedar tenant himself but he took some loan from the respondent No.3 which he could not pay. Consequently his land was put to for open auction by the Bank. In such an open auction anybody could have participated and the highest bider was entitled to get the land. The object under Section 42 was to put an embargo by sale of Khatedar tenant of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. No such embargo has been put with regard to open auction. The object under Section 42 was to put an embargo by sale of Khatedar tenant of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. No such embargo has been put with regard to open auction. Learned counsel relied upon Section 14 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 by which also if in some open auction Bank itself purchases the interest of the agriculturist and subsequently, sells it itself then also it shall be subject to any provisions of any law in force which may place restrictions on purchase of land by non-agriculturist or ceiling for acquisition of land or by a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or fragmentation of land. In the matter at hand, these provisions are not applicable because in the open auction Bank has not purchased the interest of respondent No.1." 19. The State of Rajasthan assailed validity, correctness and propriety of the judgment dated 14.5.2002 and also of the order dated 24.1.2002 by way of an appeal, i.e. under consideration. By the order dated 5.5.2005, the Division Bench hearing the appeal considered it appropriate to refer the matter to Larger Bench for reconsideration of the judgment rendered in Asuram's case (supra), in view of the following arguments raised by learned counsel for the Land Development Bank:- (i) Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the Act of 1955 provides that a Khatedar tenant may hypotheticate or mortgage his interest in the whole or part of his holding, for the purpose of obtaining loan from the Land Development Bank of the State Government or Development Bank or Cooperative Societies or any scheduled bank or any other institution notified by the State Government on its behalf. A Khatedar belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, thus, can hypotheticate or mortgage his holding in favour of the bank or financial institutions for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance and if such Khatedar tenant fails to repay the loan, the bank or the financial institution possess every right to realise the loan amount by putting the land in question for sale through public auction. Such land can be sold to any person irrespective of the category of his belonging. Such land can be sold to any person irrespective of the category of his belonging. (ii) As per Section 3 of the Act of 1974, an agriculturist can alienate land or his interest therein in favour of a bank for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from the bank and as such the bank is having every right to transfer the property/land alienated to it by the agriculturist through public auction in case of default in satisfying the loan advanced. 20. Coupled with the two issues aforesaid, the question as to whether the mode of recovery of bank dues, as prescribed under Section 14 of the Act of 1974, is having a discriminatory and arbitrary check as per sub-section (4) of Section 14, vis-a-vis the mode of recovery provided under Section 13 is also required to be considered by this Bench, that being the sole issue addressed and dealt with by Division Bench in the case of Asuram (supra). 21. Before coming to merits of each of the issues, at threshold I would like to state that fundamental object of the provisions under Sections 42, 46-A and 49-A of the Act of 1955 is to safeguard the interest of weaker sections of the society. The legislation concerned intends to keep tenancy of a land even on its sale, gift, bequest, sublet or transfer with a person of same category of weaker section, to which it was earlier belonging. The legislature while redefining and re-establishing the land and its relations with tenants found the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes a separate class and, thus by provisions aforesaid an effort is made to protect this class of tenants from all forms of exploitation and social injustice. With the same object, sub-sec. (4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974 was enacted. These provisions are intending to achieve the constitutional mandate, as prescribed under Article 46. 22. With this background, we now proceed to examine constitutionality of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974. 23. Under the Act of 1974, Sections 13 and 14 prescribe two different modes for recovery of bank dues from an agriculturist, who fails to repay the advance borrowed. 22. With this background, we now proceed to examine constitutionality of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974. 23. Under the Act of 1974, Sections 13 and 14 prescribe two different modes for recovery of bank dues from an agriculturist, who fails to repay the advance borrowed. As per Section 13, an application is to be preferred by the bank to the prescribed authority, and then prescribed authority may by an order direct the agriculturist or his heir or legal representative or his guarantor for making payment of sum due, by sale of land or interest therein the charged or mortgaged immovable property. The order passed by the prescribed authority is having force of a decree given by civil court and, thus, it can be executed as a decree granted by civil court. Under Section 13, role of the bank is quite limited. It utilise service of a statutory agency, that is the prescribed authority to get recovery of its dues and while doing so, the creditor bank do not acquire any proprietary interest in the land or the charged immovable property. Whatever interest transfers under this provision is through the prescribed authority, to the auction purchaser. 24. On the other hand, as per Section 14 of the Act of 1974, the creditor bank itself acquires the land and thereafter, it may be disposed by sale within the period prescribed. 25. The argument of Shri Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel, is that the check given under Section 4 is discriminatory in view of the fact that if, a sale is made as per Section 13, then the land or the interest therein can be transferred to anyone irrespective of the caste or belonging of the purchaser. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Lad Bai & Ors. vs. Board of Revenue, reported in RLR 2000(1) 123 = RLW 2000(1) Raj. 78, where a Single Bench held that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 are not attracted, if the transfer of land has been made in execution of a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. vs. Board of Revenue, reported in RLR 2000(1) 123 = RLW 2000(1) Raj. 78, where a Single Bench held that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 are not attracted, if the transfer of land has been made in execution of a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. As such, if the recovery, proceedings are conducted as per Rule 13, then the land or interest therein can be sold to anyone, whereas the transfer of rights or the interest while adopting procedure under Section 14 is having a check as per sub-section (4), thus, subsection (4) is germinating a discrimination merely on basis of the methodology adopted to satisfy the default. 26. I do not find any merit in the argument aforesaid. True it is, a specific check is provided as per sub-section(4) while adopting the procedure of recovery as per Section 14 of the Act of 1974, but the assumption that no such check is available while making transfer of land or the interest therein on adopting the procedure under Section 13, is erroneous. As already stated earlier, as per Section 13, the creditor bank or even the prescribed authority does not acquire any tenancy or interest with the land concerned or other immovable property at the time of making an order for sale of the land. In this procedure the sale is required to be made directly in favour of the purchaser, as such, the right whatever accrued, that will be in favour of the purchaser and such purchaser shall be abide by the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The Act of 1955 nowhere excludes application of the provisions of Section 42 even while making transfer of khatedari rights as a consequent to the execution of a decree of civil court. The Division Bench in Asuram's case (supra), thus, rightly held that as per Section 13, what right is transferred through auction, is the interest of the judgment debtor and in that event the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 affecting restrictions on the person on whom interest of judgment debtors can be transferred are automatically attracted. The Division Bench in Asuram's case (supra), thus, rightly held that as per Section 13, what right is transferred through auction, is the interest of the judgment debtor and in that event the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 affecting restrictions on the person on whom interest of judgment debtors can be transferred are automatically attracted. The assumption of the petitioner respondent and of the respondent bank that the transfer of the land or interest therein, as per Section 13 of the Act is to be executed like a decree of civil court, therefore, the checks provided under the Act of 1955 shall not be applicable, is having no foundation. 27. In the case of Lad Bai (supra) it was held that the provisions of Section 42 shall not be applicable in event of sale of land during the course of execution of a decree, as the act of sale, gift or bequest are voluntary, whereas the execution of court decree is not a voluntary act. The reasoning given is not at all convincing, as the purpose of Section 42 is to protect the weaker section in general, by maintaining the rights so transferred within the same category and the act of sale, gift or bequest is voluntary or not, i.e. totally immaterial. The law laid down in the case of Lad Bai (supra), thus, in my view do not depicts correct position of law. 28. Yet another argument is advanced by learned counsel Shri Vijay Bishnoi by placing reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (DB Special Appeal No.197/2001), decided vide judgment dated 9.1.2003. In the case aforesaid it was held that a company being a juristic person is not having any caste and, therefore, any transfer of tenancy' rights by a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in favour of such a company do not attracts the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. In the case aforesaid it was held that a company being a juristic person is not having any caste and, therefore, any transfer of tenancy' rights by a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in favour of such a company do not attracts the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. It is contended that the bank is also a body corporate, thus, is a juristic person, therefore, the provisions of Section 42, shall not be applicable, if any land or interest therein is transferred to it by a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and, if the provision of Section 42 are not applicable then there is no reason to extend a similar kind of check, while making recovery of the bank dues as per provisions of Section 14. This argument, though appears attractive, is bereft of merit. 29. In State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), it was held that the provisions of Section 42 shall not be attracted in the case of transfer of the land or interest therein by a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe to a juristic person, being having no caste. On examination of relevant provisions, I find that the judgment aforesaid is based on misreading of statute and is also prone to misuse. 30. Section 42 of the Act of 1955 provides that the sale, gift or bequest by a khatedari tenant shall be void, if such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste, or by a member of Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Tribe. Meaning thereby, a member of Scheduled Caste may transfer his interest in whole or a part of his holding only to the member of the Scheduled Caste and a member of Scheduled Tribe, may to a member of the Schedule Tribe only. The emphasis of Section 42 is to maintain rights of a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe in their own category. The transferee should be a member of Scheduled Caste, if the transferor is from Scheduled Caste, and same will be the position in the case of Scheduled Tribe also. The emphasis of Section 42 is to maintain rights of a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe in their own category. The transferee should be a member of Scheduled Caste, if the transferor is from Scheduled Caste, and same will be the position in the case of Scheduled Tribe also. As a matter of fact Section 42 does not permit transfer of interest in a land holding by a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe even to a person who is not having any caste. The reasoning given by Division Bench in State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), therefore, is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 42. 31. The law laid down in the case aforesaid is also prone to misuse. A partnership firm, a cooperative society, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act too are juristic person. If the analogy adopted by Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) be permitted to stand, then the land holding rights of tenants belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe can easily be transferred to the juristic person referred above ignoring the provisions of Section 42. A society of landlords or a firm involved in commercial farming may very well grab the land holding rights of a Scheduled Caste being a juristic person. The law laid down by Division Bench in State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), as a matter of fact provides a path to strip off the tenancy and other connected rights of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe against the spirit of the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 46-A and 49-A of the Act of 1955. This virtually frustrates the basic purpose of restrictive provisions, included by the legislature to protect the tenancy rights of priviledged categories. The Act of 1955 nowhere lay down any distinction with a person vis-a-vis juristic person. The sole emphasis of the provisions of Section 42 is to protect Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from social injustice and to ensure their economic rights. For this purpose land holding rights of these sections are kept intact in their own category. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that the law laid down by Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) is also not correct. 32. For this purpose land holding rights of these sections are kept intact in their own category. In view of the discussions made above, I am of the view that the law laid down by Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) is also not correct. 32. Under the Act of 1955 Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes are treated as a class separate than the other tenants and this classification is founded on socio-economic and political circumstances of the Indian society. The classification, therefore, is having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The check as per sub-sec. (4) of Section 14 was necessary in view of the fact that while adopting the mode of recovery under this provision, the rights of an agriculturist stands transferred in favour of the financing agency. 33. The transfer of rights so made is essential to obtain financial assistance, and looking to this statutory transfer of rights the legislature in its absolute domain considered it appropriate to have a check on further transfer of tenancy rights by the creditor bank. Sub-sec.(4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974 provides a shelter to the members of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or in general the above mentioned priviledged categories from loosing their tenancy rights in favour of some other category. This check is absolutely in consonance to the constitutional mandate i.e. to safeguard the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes economic and social status, not only as an individual but as an independent class of tenants. Sub-sec.(4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974 also serves the protection available to the priviledged categories under Section 42 of the Act of 1955. As already stated earlier, the Act of 1955 is enlisted under Schedule IXth, thus, is having protection as per Article 31-B of the Constitution. The availability of same protection to sub-sec.(4) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974, thus, is implicit. The resultant is that the classification of the tenants and their tenancy rights adopted under the Act of 1974 are rational and the provision in question in no manner suffers from any arbitrariness, irrational or germination of discrimination or any inconsistency, otherwise too with the rights enshrined under part third of the Constitution. 34. The other argument advanced is that sub-sec. 34. The other argument advanced is that sub-sec. (1) of Section 43 of the Act of 1955 permits a khatedar tenant to hypotheticate or mortgage his interest in whole or part of his holding for the purpose of obtaining loan from the Land Development Bank of the State Government or the Development Bank or Cooperative Society or any Scheduled Bank or any other institution notified by the State Government on its behalf and if such khatedar fails to repay the loan, the creditor agency possess every right to realise the loan amount by putting the land in question for sale through public auction and such land can be sold to any person irrespective of the category of his belonging. 35. True it is, Section 43 permits a khatedar tenant to hypotheticate or mortgage his interest, however, if such tenant is belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then certainly the provisions of Section 42 shall be attracted and the creditor financing agency have to adhere the provisions aforesaid while making sale of such land or interest therein. 36. It is next contended by learned counsel for the respondent bank that as per Section 3 of the Act of 1974, an agriculturist can alienate land or his interest therein in favour of a bank for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance, thus, the bank is having every right to transfer the property/land alienated to it by the agriculturist, through public auction in the case of default in satisfying the loan advanced. This argument too deserves to be negatived simply on the count that as per Section 3 of the Act of 1974, an agriculturist may alienate his rights and interest in the land holding by creation of charge or mortgage for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from the bank and not for their permanent transfer. The purpose for marking charge or mortgaging land or interest in favour of a bank as per Section 3 is only for obtaining financial assistance. So far as permanent transfer of such rights is concerned, that is governed by Sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974. 37. In light of the entire discussions made above, the law laid down in the case of Asuram (supra) is correct, thus, do not require any reconsideration. The view taken by learned Single Judge in the case of Uka, under the judgment dated 14.5.2002, is not correct. 37. In light of the entire discussions made above, the law laid down in the case of Asuram (supra) is correct, thus, do not require any reconsideration. The view taken by learned Single Judge in the case of Uka, under the judgment dated 14.5.2002, is not correct. The special appeal deserves to be dealt with as per the law laid down in the case of Asuram (supra). Accordingly, the reference is answered. Hon'ble Vyas, J.-In the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.158/2004, the Division Bench of this Court, while taking into consideration the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Asuram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore, reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345, vide order dated 5.5.2005 adverting to the order-sheet dated 11.10.2004 made a reference that Division Bench judgment in Asuram's case (supra) requires re-consideration by a Larger Bench and, accordingly, ordered the matter to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench. Hence this reference. 39. In the case of Asuram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore, AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345, Division Bench of this Court held that sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 restricts the sphere of transfer of land acquired by the Creditor Bank from the Debtors belonging to SC/ST category. However, keeping in view the basic scheme and the constitutional mandate which protects the interests of weaker sections of the society, particularly members of SC/ST and the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which puts restrictions on the alienation of interest of the members of SC/ST to the members of SC/ST alone so that the sources of such weaker sections remain within such community and it does not go out of them. 40. Present special appeal arises out from the judgment dated 14.05.2002 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1499/2002, State of Rajasthan vs. Uka & Another, by which, the learned Single Judge of this o Court held as under: "The land in question belongs to respondent No.1 who is a Scheduled Tribe person. He took some loan from respondent No.3 Land Development Bank but could not pay the same resulting which land of respondent No.1 was mortgaged to Bank was put for open auction. He took some loan from respondent No.3 Land Development Bank but could not pay the same resulting which land of respondent No.1 was mortgaged to Bank was put for open auction. In the open auction on 19.3.94 respondent No.2 Manoj Kumar who is not a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe purchased the same by offering the highest bid. Tehsildar concerned requested Addl. Collector to make reference to the Board of Revenue because a sale in open auction of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe a persoh who is a not a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person was in contravention of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. The above reference was refused by the Board of Revenue vide Annex.1 dated 24/1/2002. Hence this petition. Learned counsel relied upon Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 by which the sale gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenant of his interest whole or part of his holding shall be void if such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or by a member of Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. In the matter at hand, no such sale was conducted by the Khatedar tenant himself but he took some loan from the respondent No.3 which he could not pay. Consequently his land was put to for open auction by the Bank. In such an open auction anybody could have participated and the highest bider was entitled to get the land. The object under Section 42 was to put an embargo by sale of Khatedar tenant of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. No such embargo has been put with regard to open auction. Learned counsel relied upon Section 14 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 by which also if, in some open auction Bank itself purchases the interest of the agriculturist and subsequently, sells it itself then also it shall be subject to any provisions of any law in force which may place restrictions on purchase of land by non-agriculturist or ceiling for acquisition of land or by a person not belonging to Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe or fragmentation of land. In the matter at hand, these provisions are not applicable because in the open auction Bank has not purchased the interest of respondent No.1. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same stands dismissed at the admission stage itself." 41. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge, the State went in civil special appeal before the Division Bench, and while taking into consideration the judgment of the Asuram's case (supra) as well as judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this Court made the instant reference as noted above. 42. With a view to resolving the juridical controversy involved in the present case, facts and circumstances of the case may be recapitulated. Uka, respondent No.1 herein, a person belonging to scheduled tribe category, took loan from respondent No.3 Land Development Bank, Branch Raniwada while mortgaging 1.28 hectares of land out of land measuring 4.54 hectares, comprised in khasra No.339/378, owned by him. Uka failed to repay the loan, therefore, ultimately the Bank issued demand notice to pay Rs.13,075/- on 11.01.1993, followed by another notice dated 27.07.1993. The dues were, however, not paid by debtor Uka. In the circumstances, therefore, proclamation for sale of land mortgaged to the Bank was issued and the said land was purchased in open auction held on 19.03.1994 by respondent No.2 Manoj Kumar, a person neither belonging to category Scheduled Tribe nor Scheduled Caste. The land was redeemed from mortgage and entered in the name of respondent No.2. 43. Tehsildar, Raniwada moved a reference application under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 to the Collector, Jalore on the ground that the land in question was belonging to respondent No.1, a scheduled tribe person and his land could not have been sold to respondent No.2 as the same was in contravention of the provisions of Section 42 (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1955"). The Collector, Jalore made a reference to the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.9.2000. Board of Rever1ue, however, dismissed the reference vide order dated 24.1.2002. Thereafter, judgment of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the State by way of filing writ petition before this Court. The Collector, Jalore made a reference to the Board of Revenue vide order dated 6.9.2000. Board of Rever1ue, however, dismissed the reference vide order dated 24.1.2002. Thereafter, judgment of the Board of Revenue was challenged by the State by way of filing writ petition before this Court. Learned Single Judge held that objection under Section 42 was to put an embargo upon sale of interest of khatedar tenant belonging to Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of SC/ST and no such embargo has put with regard to open auction. 44. It was specifically argued by learned counsel for the State before the Division Bench that the adjudication made by the learned Single Judge is in direct conflict with the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Asuram's case (supra), in which, it has been held that sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 14 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be called "the Act of 1974") restricts the sphere of transfer of land acquired by the creditor Bank from the debtors belonging to SC/ST category. 45. For the question under reference, first of all, a close look at the relevant provisions of the Acts and Rules may be had. The State legislature enacted the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. At the time of enactment of the Act of 1955, certain provisions were made to safeguard the interest of weaker sections of the society as scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Under Section 42 of the Act, following provisions are incorporated: "42. General restrictions on sale, gift & bequest-The sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenants of his interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void, if XXX(a)...;.......deleted w.eJ. 11.11.1992 (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of 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. 11.11.1992 (b) such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of 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." Similarly, under Section 46-A, following provisions are incorporated: "46-A. Special provision for letting or subletting by members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes-Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 44, 45 and 46, no person who is a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe shall let or sub-let the whole or any part of his holding under the said sections to any person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe." 46. With regard to special provision for exchange by members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes under Section 49-A, provisions are legislated that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 48 and 49, no tenant who is a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe shall have the right to exchange his holding under any of those sections for land which is included in the holding of a person who is not a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and an application under section 49 shall be rejected if it contravenes the provisions of this section. Meaning thereby, by enactment of general law known as Rajasthan Tenancy Act, certain restrictions were imposed upon alienation of land belonging to a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. 47. The Legislature, in its wisdom, for providing certain relief to weaker sections of the society, so as to enable availability of financial assistance, framed the Act known as the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be called "the Act of 1974"). In the Act of 1974, as per Section 3, a right has been given to members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe even to alienate the land or his interest therein, including creation of charge or mortgage, for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from any bank. Language of section 3 of the Act of 1974 reads as follows: "3. In the Act of 1974, as per Section 3, a right has been given to members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe even to alienate the land or his interest therein, including creation of charge or mortgage, for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from any bank. Language of section 3 of the Act of 1974 reads as follows: "3. Removal of restrictions on alienation.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or any custom or tradition, it shall be lawful for an agriculturist whose rights of alienation of land or of any interest therein are restricted, to alienate the land or his interest therein, including by creation of a charge or mortgage on such land or interest in favour of a bank for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance from that bank." Further, in Chapter IV of the Act of 1974, provision has been incorporated for recovery of dues by the bank. Sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 read as follows : "13. Sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 read as follows : "13. Recovery of dues of a bank through a prescribed authority.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an official of the State Government notified by the State Government as the prescribed authority for the purpose of this section may, on the application of a bank, make an order on or any agriculturist or his heir or legal representative or his guarantor, directing the payment of any sum due to the bank on account of financial assistance availed of by the agriculturist, by the sale of any land or interest therein or any other immovable property, upon which the payment of such money is charged or mortgaged or any other property in his possession: Provided that no order shall be made by the prescribed authority under this sub-section for the sale of any land or any interest therein or any other immovable property upon which the payment of money is charged or mortgaged or any other property in his possession, as the case may be, unless the agriculturist or the heir or legal representative or his guarantor of the agriculturist, as the case may be, has been given an opportunity of being heard and has been served with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him to pay the amount due and default has been made in payment thereof for three months after the determination of liabilities by such authority. (2) Every order passed by the prescribed authority in term of sub-sec.(1) shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and shall be executed by him in the same manner as a decree of such court. Explanation.-For the purpose of exercising powers conferred by this sub-section, the prescribed authority shall be deemed to be a civil court. (3) Nothing in this section shall debar a bank from seeking to enforce its rights in any other manner under any other law for the time being in force." "14. Explanation.-For the purpose of exercising powers conferred by this sub-section, the prescribed authority shall be deemed to be a civil court. (3) Nothing in this section shall debar a bank from seeking to enforce its rights in any other manner under any other law for the time being in force." "14. Right of a bank to acquire and dispose of immovable property.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a bank shall have power to itself acquire agricultural land or interest therein or any other immovable property which has been charged or mortgaged to it by an agriculturist in respect of any financial assistance availed of by him, provided the said land or interest therein or any other immovable property has been sought to be sold by public auction and no person has offered to purchase it for a price which is sufficient to pay to the bank the money due to it. (2) A bank which acquires land or interest therein or any other immovable property in exercise of the power vested in it under sub-sec. (1) shall dispose it of by sale, within a period to be specified by the State Government in this behalf. (3) If the bank has to lease out any land acquired by it under sub-sec. (1) pending sale thereof as indicated in sub-sec. 92), the period of lease shall not exceed one year at a time and the lessee shall not acquire any interest in that property notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force. (4) A sale by a bank of land or interest therein in terms of sub-sec. (2) shall be in favour of persons as may be prescribed by the State Government under Sec. 30 of this Act and shall be subject to any provisions of any law in force which may place restrictions on purchase of land by non-agriculturists or ceiling for acquisition of land or by a person not belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or fragmentation of land." 48. The State Government while exercising power under Section 30 of the Act of 1974 framed rules also known as the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Rules, 1976 and provision was made under Rule 5 for recovery of dues of bank by sale of immovable property. The State Government while exercising power under Section 30 of the Act of 1974 framed rules also known as the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Rules, 1976 and provision was made under Rule 5 for recovery of dues of bank by sale of immovable property. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1976 runs as under: "5. Recovery of dues of the Banks by sale of immovable property.-(1) The District Collector/Additional Collector/Sub39 Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector having jurisdiction in the area wherein the immovable property is situated shall exercise the powers of the prescribed authority under Section 13(1) of this Act. (2) The Branch Manager/Agent of the Bank concerned shall for the purposes of this section make an application to the Collector/Additional Collector/Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector concerned, giving the following particulars with respect to the loan sought to be recovered – (i) Name of the cultivator his heir or legal representative, as the case may be; (ii) Certified copy of loan agreement; (iii) Certified statement of account; (iv) Amount overdue towards principal and towards interest and date on which it became overdue; (v) Certified copy of documents creating mortgage or charge with evidence regarding its registration; and (vi) Other details of the immovable property sought to be sold such as valuation, details of co-owners etc., which may be available with the Bank; (vii) Detail of any other efforts made by the Bank to affect recovery; (viii) Reasons, if known to the Bank for non-payment. (3) If upon receipt of this application alongwith the information detailed above, Collector/Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector is satisfied,- (a) that the loan has been duly received and the loan amount or an instalment is overdue; (b) that the bank has issued a demand notice by registered post with acknowledgement due, asking the cultivator to pay the overdue amount, and more than one month has elapsed; (c) that the property sought to be sold has been mortgaged/charged to the bank against the overdue loan; he may issue a notice to the cultivator informing him, (i) that an application for recovery of the loan due alongwith the necessary documents has been filed by the concerned Bank for action under Sec.13(1); (ii) that if the cultivator wishes to deny liability for payment of the amount determined as due, he should within 30 days of the receipt of this notice, file a petition denying liability and produce documentary and other proof to support his claim; (iii) that the notice should state that if the cultivator does not deny liability or make payment, proceedings will be taken to effect recovery of the amount determined as overdue, through a sale of the immovable property specified in the notice. (4) If the cultivator denies his liability the Collector/Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector shall after hearing him decide his petition within a further period of 2 months. (5) If the Cultivator does not deny liability or cannot show sufficient cause for non-payment, the Collector/Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector shall order sale of the immovable property as per the application made by the Bank. (6) The proceeds of the sale of such property shall be appropriated for payment of the dues of the Bank and the cost of recovery and the balance amount, if any, shall be paid to the cultivator. (7) For all distraints and all sales effected under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 or sub-sec. (1) of Sec.13 the procedure followed shall be similar to that prescribed for attachment and sale of movable or immovable property for recovery of arrears of land revenue under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and rules framed thereunder. (7) For all distraints and all sales effected under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 5 or sub-sec. (1) of Sec.13 the procedure followed shall be similar to that prescribed for attachment and sale of movable or immovable property for recovery of arrears of land revenue under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, and rules framed thereunder. (8) When land or other immovable property is offered for sale by public auction in pursuance of an order for sale under Section 13 for recovery of a loan due to the Bank, an no one offers to purchase it, for a price sufficient to pay to the Bank the money due to it, the Bank may instead of waiting for resale, close the recovery proceedings by acquiring the land or interest thereunder or other immovable property charged or mortgaged to it, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 14. (9) For this purpose the Bank Manager or Agent concerned may apply to the Collector informing him of the intention of the Bank to exercise this right. (10) The Collector shall thereupon stop all recovery proceedings and pass order directing that necessary entries may be made by the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar concerned, in their books and record of rights, vesting the rights to the property which belonged to the defaulting cultivator, in the name of Bank in discharge of all liabilities of the cultivator for the amount of loan, for which the property was charged. (11) The Collector/Additional Collector/Sub Divisional Officer/ Assistant Collector shall also if so requested take steps to hand over the possession of such land or other immovable property to the Branch Manager/Agent of the Bank concerned. (12) The Bank shall in such cases sell the property, so acquired by it within a period of five years from the date of taking over possession. (13) It may during this period lease out the property as per provisions of Sec. 14(3). (14) Any sale of such property shall be subject to the following restrictions, (1) The buyer must be an agriculturist as defined in the Act; (2) Land acquired from a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall not be sold to persons who are not members of Scheduled Castes of Scheduled Tribes. (14) Any sale of such property shall be subject to the following restrictions, (1) The buyer must be an agriculturist as defined in the Act; (2) Land acquired from a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall not be sold to persons who are not members of Scheduled Castes of Scheduled Tribes. (3) The buyer should not, on acquisition of such land by sale, exceed the ceiling limit applicable to him under the law relating to ceilings on agricultural holdings." 49. After examining all the above provisions enacted by the Legislature for the purpose of recovery of the dues from the debtor belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category, upon initial perception, it emerges from the facts of the case that the Division Bench has referred this matter for the purpose that earlier Division Bench judgment, rendered in Asuram's case (supra), requires re-consideration. 50. Upon examination of the provisions of law in Asuram's case, decided by the Division Bench, in respect of which, subsequent Division Bench has made reference that for the purpose of recovery of dues by the Bank, in the Act of 1974 there is provision in Chapter IV of the Act of 1974. Sections 12 to 15 of the Act of 1974 were incorporated for the said purpose. There are two methods provided in the Act for recovery of the dues, one under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, whereby, the Bank is required to make application before the prescribed authority and duty has been cast upon the prescribed authority to make recovery of the dues of the Bank. 51. It is specifically provided under Section 13 that upon application for recovery of the sum due to Bank on account of financial assistance availed by the agriculturist, by sale of any land or interest therein or any other immovable property, upon which payment of such money is charged or mortgaged or any other property in his possession, the prescribed authority may make an order on or any agriculturist or his heir or legal representative or his guarantor, directing payment of such sum due to the Bank. Embargo has been put by the legislature that the prescribed authority shall not pass any order under Section 13 for sale of any land or interest therein or any other immovable property upon which the payment of money is charged or mortgaged or any other property in his possession, unless such agriculturist or his heir or legal representative or his guarantor has been provided opportunity of being heard and has been served with a notice by the prescribed authority calling upon him to pay the amount due and default has been made in payment thereof for three months after the determination of the liabilities by the prescribed authority. 52. Under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, after providing opportunity as aforesaid, the prescribed authority shall pass order under sub-section (1) of Section 13 and, that order shall be deemed to be a decree of civil Court and shall be executed by him in the same manner as a decree of such Court; meaning thereby, any order passed by the prescribed authority upon application filed by the Bank for recovery of the dues is required to be treated as decree of civil Court and it can be executed by the prescribed authority in the same manner as a decree of such Court; but, in sub-section (3) of Section 13, liberty has been given to the Bank that nothing in this section shall debar the Bank from seeking to enforce its rights in any other manner under any other law for the time being in force. 53. Thus, under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, for recovery of the dues the Bank can take recourse through the prescribed authority but, simultaneously, liberty is reserved to the Bank by the legislature under sub-section (3) that Bank cannot be debarred from seeking to enforce its rights in any other manner. 54. Second remedy is provided to the Bank for recovery of the sum due to it under Section 14 of the Act of 1974. 54. Second remedy is provided to the Bank for recovery of the sum due to it under Section 14 of the Act of 1974. Under Section 14, it is provided that the Bank shall have power to itself acquire agricultural land or interest therein or any other immovable property which has been charged or mortgaged to it by an agriculturist in respect of any financial assistance availed by him provided the said land or interest therein or any other immovable property has been sought to be sold by public auction and no person has offered to purchase it for a price which is sufficient to pay to the Bank the money due to it. Legislature has further granted option to the Bank under Section 14 of the Act to acquire the land; but, again, under Section 14, embargo has been put by the legislature that Bank can acquire the agricultural land or interest therein or any other immovable property if the land has been sought to be sold by public auction and no person has offered to purchase it for the price sufficient to pay the money due to the Bank; meaning thereby, upon plain reading of Sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1974 conjointly, it appears that if the prescribed authority, after passing order under sub-section (1) of Section 13, proceeded to auction the property and sufficient price is not offered, then, in that event, under Section 14 of the Act, the Bank can itself acquire the agricultural land or interest therein or any other immovable property in possession of such debtor agriculturist and can itself dispose it of in the manner provided under Section 11 for satisfaction of its dues. Under sub-section (2) of Section 14, in exercise of power vested in it under sub-section (1), the Bank shall dispose it of by sale within the period specified by the State Government in this behalf. 55. Sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act of 1974 gives power to the Bank to lease out any land acquired by it under sub-section (1) but the period of lease shall not exceed one year at a time and the lessee shall not acquire any interest in that property notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary in any other law for the time being in force. 56. 56. Under sub-section (4) of Section 14, a sale by a Bank of a land or interest therein in terms of sub-section (2) shall be in favour of persons as may be prescribed by the State Government under Section 30 of the Act and shall be subject to any provisions of any law in force which may place restrictions on purchase of land by non-agriculturists or ceiling for acquisition of land or by a person not belonging to a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe or fragmentation of land. 57. The State Government while exercising power under Section 30 of the Act of 1974 made rules known as Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Rules, 1976; and, under Rule 5 of the said rules, complete procedure has been provided for the purpose of recovery of dues by sale. Under sub-rule (8) of Rule 5, it is specifically provided that when land or other immovable property is offered for sale by public auction in pursuance of an order for sale under Section 13 for recovery of a loan due to the Bank, an no one offers to purchase it, for a price sufficient to pay to the Bank the money due to it, the Bank may instead of waiting for resale, close the recovery proceedings by acquiring the land or interest thereunder or other immovable property charged or mortgaged to it, in exercise of the powers vested in it under Section 14. 58. While exercising power under Section 14, first of all, the Bank Manager or agent concerned will apply to the Collector informing him about the intention of the Bank for exercising this right. The Collector shall thereupon stop all recovery proceedings and pass order directing that necessary entries may be made by the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar concerned, in their books and record of rights, vesting the rights to the property which belonged to the defaulting cultivator, in the name of Bank in discharge of all liabilities of the cultivator for the amount of loan, for which the property was charged; meaning thereby, as per sub-rule (10) of Rule 5 the Collector will pass an order to make necessary entries in the revenue records and cause the land, so charged, to be entered in the name of the Bank. 59. Under sub-rule (11) of Rule (5), upon request made by the Bank, the Collector/Addl. 59. Under sub-rule (11) of Rule (5), upon request made by the Bank, the Collector/Addl. Collector is also required to hand over possession of the land to the Bank concerned. Thereafter, within a period of five years, the Bank is required to sell the entire property but, under sub-rule (14), certain restrictions upon such sale are imposed, by which, it is provided that the buyer must be an agriculturist as defined in the Act, land acquired from a person who is a member of a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe shall not be sold to persons who are not members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and/or, the buyer should not, on acquisition of such land by sale, exceed the ceiling limit applicable to him under the law relating to ceilings on agricultural holdings. 60. Upon plain reading of Section 13 and 14, it is revealed that Bank can, for the purpose of recovery of dues, adopt two methods. Recovery can be made through the prescribed authority; or, upon failing to fetch the amount sufficient to reconcile its dues, the Bank can adopt the second method provided under Section 14 of the Act. 61. In Asuram's case, earlier the Division Bench has held that in a sale conducted under Section 13 of the Act, no proprietary interest is acquired by the creditor Bank in the land in question and the sale conducted under Section 13 of the Act is like a sale conducted by the Court in execution of a decree, in which, interest of the debtor involved is transferred through the agency of the Court; but, such transfer is governed by the rights and obligations attached to the land of the judgment-debtor which are attached under the general law. Therefore, if the interest of the judgment-debtor is transferred under Section 13 of the Act by the agency of the Bank upon obtaining an order from the Tehsildar, which is executed like a decree of civil Court, what is really transferred through auction is the interest of the judgment-debtor though there is involvement of the Bank or the auctionee or auctioneer and in that event, the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 effecting restrictions on the persons on whom interest of judgment-debtors can be transferred are automatically attracted; meaning thereby, earlier in Asuram's case, the Division Bench accepted that under Section 13 of the Act of 1974, there is no specific restriction imposed to sale or auction of the property by the prescribed authority in execution proceedings only to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe persons. Therefore, the Division Bench of this Court held in Asuram's case that if the proceedings are initiated under Section 13 of the Act by the prescribed authority, then, the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 effecting restrictions on the persons on whom interest of judgment-debtors can be transferred are automatically attracted. 62. It appears that the Division Bench has given the above finding because when the prescribed authority is taking action for recovery of dues the prescribed authority is selling the rights of SC/ST judgment-debtor landholder for recovery of the dues of the Bank. In that event in the auction title of SC/ST landholder is to be transferred to the purchaser by the prescribed authority. The owner of the property belonging to SC/ST category does not lose his identity being owner of the property. Therefore, the finding of the Division Bench in Asuram's case with regard to applicability of provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 being attracted automatically is based upon the fact that in the proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act the prescribed authority is auctioning the property of member of SC/ST. Therefore, to the extent of finding with regard to applicability of Rajasthan Tenancy Act effecting restriction on the person on whom interest of judgment-debtor is transferred is automatically attracted. The said finding does not require any interference. More so, no re-consideration is required to that extent. 63. Therefore, to the extent of finding with regard to applicability of Rajasthan Tenancy Act effecting restriction on the person on whom interest of judgment-debtor is transferred is automatically attracted. The said finding does not require any interference. More so, no re-consideration is required to that extent. 63. Now, upon examination of Section 14 of the Act of 1974, it comes out that Legislature has put restriction upon the Bank that in the event of acquiring the land the Bank is required to first get entry made in the revenue records by way of filing application before the revenue authority and, after entry of the land having been made in favour of the Bank, the Bank has been given liberty to sell the property under Section 14 (4) of the Act, in which, it is provided that the sale by the Bank in terms of sub-sec. (2) shall be subject to any provision or any law for the time being in force which may place restriction upon purchase of land by non-agriculturist, or the land shall not be sold to persons who are not members of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes and/or, the buyer should not, on acquisition of such land by sale, exceed the ceiling limit applicable to him under the law relating to ceilings on agricultural holdings. 64. In Asuram's case, it has been held by the Division Bench that restriction provided under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act will apply upon the prescribed authority also and legislature has rightly imposed restriction under Section 14 (4) upon the Bank that agricultural land of the agriculturist who belongs to SC/ST and who has mortgaged the land with the Bank should not be sold to persons other than belonging to SC/ST. 65. 65. Upon perusal of the relevant provisions, though the provisions of the Act of 1955 will automatically apply upon the prescribed authority when he is exercising power under Section 13 of the Act; but, upon examination of o Section 14 of the Act of 1974, it appears that for protecting the rights of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe agriculturists, the Bank has been given liberty to acquire the land if in public auction no person offered to purchase the said land for a price sufficient to payoff the dues of the Bank; meaning thereby, the purpose of inserting Section 14 and giving liberty to the Bank to acquire the land belonging to scheduled category agriculturist against whom the Bank is required to take action for recovery of dues, the legislature so as to watch the interest of reserve class category, second option has been given to the Bank that Bank can sell the property after acquiring the land and, for the said purpose, rules have been framed, in which, complete procedure has been laid n down in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1976 and, as per sub-rule (9) of Rule 5, if the Bank intends to exercise power vested in it by Section 14 of the Act of 1974, then, for the said purpose, the Bank Manager or agent concerned is required to apply to the Collector informing him the intention of the Bank to exercise its rights under Section 14 and, further, upon information, duty is cast upon the Collector to stop all recovery proceedings and pass an order directing necessary entries to be made by the Sub-Registrar and Tehsildar vesting rights to the property in question which belongs to the defaulting cultivator in the name of the Bank in discharge of all liabilities of the cultivator for which the property is charged. 66. Obviously, Section 14 has been inserted to watch the interest of the person against whom the dues are required to be recovered by the Bank. The above provision clearly speaks that first of all entries in the revenue record is required to be made by the Collector in the name of Bank because without acquiring any right or title no property can be sold by the Bank and when entries are made in favour of the Bank, then, the Bank becomes absolute owner or title holder of the said land. The intention of the legislature is to extend protection and by sale of the property to satisfy the dues and if the said purpose is for welfare of public, then, obviously it is to be presumed that purposefully this provision was enacted to create right in favour of the Bank and, in that event, being absolute owner of the property while selling the property the Bank may fetch sufficient amount to satisfy entire dues. 67. It is also worthwhile to observe here that in sub-rule (10) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1976, it is specifically mentioned that entries will be made in the name of the Bank in discharge of all liabilities of the cultivator for the amount of loan, for which the property was charged. Now, therefore, the Bank is required to satisfy the outstanding and, for that purpose, the restriction has been imposed upon the Bank that the Bank cannot alienate the cultivatory land of scheduled caste/scheduled tribe to the general class and it has to be sold in favour of the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe. Upon application of mind, in my opinion, in Asuram's case, while upholding the validity of Section 14 (4) reason for the same has been given by the Division Bench. As per the Division Bench, keeping in view the basic scheme and constitutional mandate which protects the interests of weaker sections of the society, particularly members of SC/ST and the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 which puts restrictions on the alienation of the interest of the members of the SC/ST, to the members of the SC/ST alone so that the sources of such weaker sections remains within such community and it does not go out of them, therefore, by dint of sub-section (4) of Section 14 of the Act, the legislative policy is maintained that interest of members of SC/ST should continue to remain with that community and it does not go out of them. In my opinion, said reason for upholding the validity of Section 14 (4) is not based upon sound grounds for the following reasons: (A) As per Section 14 of the Act of 1974, read with sub-rules (8) to (14) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1976, when the Bank intends to take recourse to Section 14 of the Act of 1974, then, first of all, the Bank is required to inform the Collector its intention to exercise such right. Upon information by the Bank, the Collector/prescribed authority is required to stop all recovery proceedings and directions are required to be given for making necessary entries in the record of rights in favour of the Bank for the property which belonged to the defaulting cultivator. Further, it is provided under sub-rule (10) specifically that the said entry will be made in favour of the Bank in discharge of all liabilities of the cultivator for the amount of loan for which the property is charged; meaning thereby, for the purpose of making entry in the name of Bank, first of all, SC/ST debtor cultivator is required to be discharged from all liabilities and this provision has been made for the welfare of the cultivator whose land is acquired by the Bank for the purpose of satisfying the dues. After entry in the record, the agricultural land so acquired becomes property of the Bank and complete power to alienate such property goes to the Bank and outstanding of the agriculturist loanee becomes satisfied and, therefore, role of the Bank commences for the purpose of recovery of the public money. The Division Bench while upholding the validity of Section 14 (4) strangely gave reason that restriction prescribed under Section 14 (4) of the Act does not go contrary to constitutional mandate because the constitutional mandate which protects the interest of the weaker sections of the society particularly SC/ST and provisions of the Act of 1955 which puts restriction on the alienation of interest of SC/ST to members of SC/ST so that the source of such weaker section does not go out of them. It is not understandable how after entry of the agricultural land in the revenue records having been made in favour of the Bank the land belongs to SC/ST and, if the property is not belonging to SC/ST after entries in the revenue records in the name of the Bank, then, how the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act whereby restriction has been imposed will apply. The first condition for entry in the revenue record of the agricultural land in favour of the Bank is that loanee should be discharged of all liabilities; meaning thereby, while following the constitutional mandate protecting the interests of the agriculturist including SC/ST category that before entries being made they will be discharged of all liabilities. Therefore, it cannot be said that the reason given by the Division Bench in Asuram's case for upholding the validity of Sec. 11(1) of the Act is based upon sound reasons. More so, it appears that it has escaped the mind of the Division Bench that after entry of the agricultural land in the name of the Bank belonging to SC/ST the said agricultural land becomes property of the Bank. This right is only created after discharging the debtor agriculturist from all liabilities. Therefore, the view of the Division Bench in Asuram's case is not correct. (B) Upon perusal of all relevant provisions including the provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, Act of 1971 and Rules of 1976, it gives impression that in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act certain restrictions were put for not alienating the property of SC/ST to other than members of SC/ST. That provision is based upon the mandate of the Constitution to protect the rights of the weaker sections of the society. Thereafter, it was felt necessary in the year 1974 that if the agriculturist belonging to SC/ST category is in need of money, then, how he will mortgage his property with the Bank because there is restriction not to alienate the property. Therefore, for the pious reason, the legislature specifically provided under Section 3 of the Act of 1974 that even SC/ST cultivators can mortgage their property with the Bank for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance; meaning thereby, the legislature, first of all, protected the right of the weaker sections of the society while inserting restriction upon the sale of agricultural land of SC/ST cultivators in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Secondly, for the upliftment of the weaker sections, in the Act of 1974, it is provided that even if there is restriction imposed in the Act of 1955, such SC/ST cultivators can mortgage their land in favour of the Bank for obtaining financial assistance. Thirdly, in the event of non-payment of the bank dues, again, provision has been inserted in sub-rule (10) of Rule 5 that in the event of invoking Section 14 of the Act if the Bank is acquiring the land of the agriculturist belonging to SC/ST, first of all, the Bank shall make an application to the Collector for the purpose of entries to be made in the revenue record in respect of such land in favour of the Bank and, upon such application, duty has been cast upon the Collector to pass order for making entries in the name of Bank in the revenue record; but, again, a restriction has been put that before entries are made, the debtor cultivator shall be discharged from all liabilities; meaning thereby, decision was taken for welfare of the member of the weaker section not only SC/ST but all agriculturists, and, at last, when dues are not paid, then, it is duty of the financial institution to recovery public money and, for that purpose, the legislature has provided that, first of all, the Bank shall acquire title over the land and, for the said purpose, the loanee shall be discharged from all his liabilities towards the Bank dues. Thus, almost at every stage, the constitutional mandate to protect the interest of SC/ST members has been observed by the legislature. However, under Section 13 of the Act although it is nowhere provided that land of SC/ST category agriculturist shall be sold only to SC/ST category buyer; but, as observed hereinabove, application of the restraint under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is automatic. Under Section 14 (4), when the Bank becomes title holder and debtor cultivator has been completely discharged of all his liabilities, the legislature has put the restriction that the Bank cannot alienate the said property by sale except to agriculturist belonging to SC/ST. Under Section 14 (4), when the Bank becomes title holder and debtor cultivator has been completely discharged of all his liabilities, the legislature has put the restriction that the Bank cannot alienate the said property by sale except to agriculturist belonging to SC/ST. In my opinion, the restriction imposed under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under Section 42 will not apply in the event the Bank takes recourse to Section 14 (4) of the Act of 1974 and such restriction imposed under Section 14 (4) of the Act of 1976, so also, under sub-rule (14) of Rule 5 that Bank cannot sell the said property to general class or will sell only to SC/ST category agriculturist is not based upon any reasonable nexus with the Bank's objective for taking recourse to Section 14 (4) of the Act of 1974. More so, such restriction is contrary to Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act because Section 42 of the Act of 1955 provides general restriction of sale, gift or bequest which is in clear words that if such sale, gift or bequest is by members of SC/ST in favour of a person who is not member of such SC/ST category shall be void. Here, in this case, the Bank cannot be treated to be reserve class entity. More so, the Bank acquiring the title to sell the property after releasing the SC/ST debtor cultivator from all liabilities in respect of the outstanding dues. In this view of the matter, the Division Bench judgment in Asuram's case has given contrary reasons for upholding the validity of Section 14 (4) of the Act because, in fact, after acquiring right by the Bank to sell the property in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1974 and Rules of 1976, earlier owner of the property which may belong to SC/ST has nothing to do with the property in question after acquisition by the Bank. Therefore, the view taken by the Division Bench for upholding the validity of Section 14 (4) of the Act is not based upon legal grounds. 68. On the basis of above discussion, I am of the opinion that adjudication made by the Division Bench in Asuram's case is proper for the purpose of Section 13 of the Act of 1974. Therefore, the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act will apply automatically in the proceedings under Section 13. 68. On the basis of above discussion, I am of the opinion that adjudication made by the Division Bench in Asuram's case is proper for the purpose of Section 13 of the Act of 1974. Therefore, the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act will apply automatically in the proceedings under Section 13. of the Act because till action is taken by the prescribed authority, title remains in the name of SC/ST cultivator; but, as soon as the Bank invokes remedy for recovery of dues under Section 14 of the Act of 1974, first of all, the land is required to be entered in the records of right in the name of the Bank and, after entry in favour of the Bank having been made, the Bank becomes title holder of the land and, in that event, the land shall come out from the restriction imposed under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Therefore, the restriction imposed under Section 14 (4) of the Act and sub-rule (14) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1976 not to alienate the property by sale by the Bank except to members of SC/ST is ultra vires, so also, contrary to provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 because after enactment of the Act of 1974, in which, Section 3 is inserted enabling the SC/ST cultivator to obtain financial assistance by creating charge or mortgage upon his land in favour of the Bank and, in the event of recovery of dues by the Bank under Section 14 of the Act of 1974, the restriction imposed under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 will automatically dissolve and cannot operate in the manner contemplated in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.--I agree with the opinion of brother Justice Govind Mathur & wish to add the following: 70. Hon'ble DR. KOTHARI, J.--I agree with the opinion of brother Justice Govind Mathur & wish to add the following: 70. In my opinion, the transferability of khatedar's interest under Section 41 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act contained in Chapter IV of the said Act was made subject to the condition specified in section 42 and 43 of the said Act and Section 42 of the Act provides for general restrictions on sale, gift and bequest by a khatedar tenant of his interest in the whole or part of his holding and it is prescribed that such sale, gift or bequest shall be void if such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe. 71. We are concerned with clause (b) of Section 42 in the present case, which has been echoed in the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Credit Operations (Removal of Difficulties) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the RODA Act, 1974) and similar restriction provided in Rule 5 (14) of the Rules of 1976 framed u/Sec. 30 of the said Act by the State Govt. 72. The interesting question which has cropped up by the reference order, requiring us to determine as to whether the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Asu Ram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore ( AIR 2000 (Raj.) 345 ) by which the Division Bench held that the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the said Act are not ultra vires requires reconsideration or not in view of the reference order in the case in hand in State vs. Uka & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 158/2004) decided on 5/5/2005). The question is whether the Land Development Bank effecting recovery of the loans given to the agriculturists, by resorting to the provisions of Section 14 of the said Act gets outside the shackles of restrictions imposed on transfer of such agricultural land to a person, who does not belong to SC/ST class even though the land in question was acquired from such agriculturists, who belonged to SC/ST Class. 73. 73. In our opinion, the Bank cannot get out of this restriction imposed under Section 42 (b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act read with Section 14 (4) of the RODA Act and further Rule 5 (14) of the Rules of 1976 Rules framed by the State Govt. and the decision of the Division Bench in Asu Ram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore (supra) does not require any reconsideration. The purpose of providing such restriction appears to be to keep the resources belonging to the weaker section namely SC/ST category within that class only. The pool of resources including the agricultural land which is the source of their bread and butter by dint of their hard work should not be allowed to be grabbed and taken away by so called affluent and richer section or haves of the society. The Legislature in its wisdom while enacting RODA Act with a view to enable the Commercial Banks to undertake financing of agriculture on large scale in pursuance of the recommendations of Talwar Committee, the expert group constituted by the Reserve Bank of India to study the enactments relating to smooth and efficient operation of the commercial banks in the sphere of agriculture credit and to provide single consolidated legislation in agricultural credit business of commercial Banks, thought it fit and necessary to retain such restriction imposed in Section 42 (b) of the Rajasthan Act in its special enactment of 1974 and Rules framed thereunder in 1976 to zealously safeguard the interest of such weaker section of the society. 74. The contention raised by Mr. Vijay Bishnoi and other learned advocates as amicus curiae is that the Bank, a juristic person, is substituted in place of the agriculturist, whose land is acquired for the purpose of repaying the debt and interest thereon, in the repayment of which he has defaulted, by virtue of sub-rule (10) of Rule 5, &, therefore, the restriction on further transfer by Bank to a person of such weaker section only is lifted or removed, in our opinion, is misconceived. Sub-rule (10) of Rule 5 which permits the Collector on the application of the Bank, after the efforts of recovery under Section 13 fails and Bank decides to acquire the land itself, to slop all recovery proceedings against such agriculturist and Collector, can direct the Tehsilder to record the rights of the Bank in the Revenue record, vesting the rights to the property which belonged to the defaulting cultivator, in the name of Bank in discharge of all liabilities of the cultivator for the amount of loan, for which the property was charged. The Bank then can sell such property so acquired by it within the period of five years from the date of taking over the possession. But sub-rule (14) of Rule 5 clearly says that any such sale of such property shall be subject to the restriction that such land if acquired from a person, who is member of SC/ST, shall not to be sold to the person, who is not a member of SC/ST. The contention of learned counsels that substitution of juristic person, the Bank, in the Revenue record removes such restriction on the Bank, with great respects, is incorrect and cannot be sustained. Such recording of name of the Bank in the Revenue record is merely to vest in it the ownership right of the agricultural land in question and to give discharge certificate to the agriculturist and is to facilitate further transfer of such land upon auction or otherwise to a third party. The restriction under Section 42 (b) of the Tenancy Act and as repeated in Section 14 (4) of the RODA Act or for that matter under Rule 5 (14) of the Rules of 1976 do not prohibit transfer of agricultural land as such but only put a restriction upon such transfer that if such land was acquired from a person, who belonged to a particular caste namely SC/ST, such further transfer will be subject to restriction that such transfer has to be made to a person of that class only. The intervening substitution of Bank in the Revenue record cannot wash away this restriction and if the contention of learned counsel for the Bank was to be upheld, it would clearly mean ignoring the provisions of law as they exist on the statute book and taking a distorted view of the matter, which we are not inclined to take. The intervening substitution of Bank in the Revenue record cannot wash away this restriction and if the contention of learned counsel for the Bank was to be upheld, it would clearly mean ignoring the provisions of law as they exist on the statute book and taking a distorted view of the matter, which we are not inclined to take. In fact, the challenge to provisions of Section 14 (4) of the Act and Rule 5 (14) of the Rules was laid before us only collaterally because the reference order says that whether the judgment of Division Bench in Asu Ram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore requires reconsideration or nor by this larger bench. Since the Division Bench in Asu Ram's case upheld the validity of the provisions of Section 14 (4) of the Act, as such no valid grounds were raised before us for laying any challenge to Section 14 (4) or Rule 5 (14) of the relevant Statutes. Even otherwise, on a closer examination of the entire scheme of this Act, we do not find any ground to uphold any such challenge to the validity of the said provisions of law. 75. A contention was also raised by learned counsel Shri RR. Nagori that since under Section 13(3) of the RODA Act, the Bank can enforce its rights even by approaching the civil court and obtain a decree against the defaulting agriculturist and the court can auction such agricultural land in execution proceedings, no such restriction can be put on such court auctions. With respect, we are unable to concur with this contention of the learned counsel. The remedies provided to the Bank are three folds; (i) recovery of dues through Prescribed Authority as per Section 13 of the Act, whose order is treated as decree of the civil court, (ii) enforcement of right of recovery of Bank in any other manner under any other law for the time being in force as per Section 13 (3) including by way of approaching the civil court by way of civil suit and (iii) the Bank can acquire such agricultural land and sell it in accordance with the Rules framed by the State Government namely Rule 5. Option of the Bank to take recourse to one of the remedies does not change the color or character of the restriction imposed upon such transfer of the land by the Bank, be it through civil court's auction or by Bank itself. The restriction imposed is that if the land acquired belongs to a person of weaker section of the society namely a member of SC/ST category, in order to maintain the pool of resources within the same weaker section, the sale outside such class is prohibited and such restriction would not go away even if the civil court was to auction the property in question upon the execution of a civil decree obtained by the Bank. No such exception has been carved out by the Legislature in this special enactment and, therefore, this contention also cannot be upheld. 76. We, therefore, reaffirm the view expressed by the Division Bench in Asu Ram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore and hold that it does not require reconsideration. 77. But we have one observation to make before we part. Such a restriction in the special enactment like RODA Act and Rules made thereunder, may give rise to a vicious circle of poverty and may not serve the very purpose for which such restrictions have been enacted by the Legislature. The purpose was obviously to protect the interest of weaker section of the society like the persons of SC/ST category. If after the land of such poor agriculturists belonging to SC/ST being acquired by Bank is again to be sold to a person of same weaker section, it is almost certain and very likely that it would not fetch the full and proper market value, which could be fetched if such agricultural land is sold in open market and so called affluent and richer people are also allowed to buy such land. Fetching of more money would not only remove the possibility of the entire agricultural debt of the poor agriculturist being completely wiped out, which may not be a possibility if such restriction is to be kept, but on the other hand, surplus, if any, will also go back to that such poor agriculturist as per Rule 5(6) of the Rules of 1976. It is naturally so because the surplus on sale of agricultural land, which is acquired for the purpose of recovery of debt itself has to go back to the same khatedar or agriculturist, whose land is acquired. If such land is not permitted to be sold to the people of general category also without the aforesaid restriction of keeping the said agricultural land within the same pool of resources of weaker section of the society, it may not fetch adequate and fuller market price and thus further deficit in such recovery will obviously have to be written off by the Bank and again a person of weaker section of the society may also fall in same kind of debt tap in which the earlier defaulting cultivator was. Therefore, in our opinion, a serious thought is required to be given by the Legislature to break this vicious circle and the law perhaps deserves to be amended after proper debate to break the aforesaid vicious circle and serve the cause of weaker section of the society in a better way. However, as the law stands today, we have already expressed our opinion that such restriction would apply to the Land Development Bank for the aforesaid reasons. Therefore, with the aforesaid observations, we hold that the Division Bench judgment in Asu Ram vs. Tehsildar, Sanchore lays down the correct proposition of law and does not require any reconsideration by this larger bench.