JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 11.8.2010, passed by the Additional Collector Jaipur-II making reference of the case to the Board of Revenue by invoking Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") read with Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act of 1955 (for short "the Act of 1955"). A further challenge is made to the order dated 25.7.2016, passed by the Board of Revenue. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were in possession of 20 bigha of land and out of it, 9 bigha of land was allotted to them while allotting 11 bigha of land to one Shri Mool Chand. The petitioners remained in possession of the land. The allotment having been made in favour of Mool Chand, petitioners preferred a suit for cancellation of allotment. The suit was decreed based on compromise. The decree therein was not challenged thus attained finality. The widow of Mool Chand namely Smt. Ratan made an application to seek reference of the case without challenging the decree. The reference was made by the Additional Collector ignoring the aforesaid and even the delay in making reference. The Board of Revenue decided reference in favour of the widow-Ratan, represented through her legal heir Santosh. The challenge to the order of Board of Revenue is on the following grounds:- (1) The Board of Revenue ignored the delay in making reference because after compromise decree in favour of the petitioner on 13.2.1996, the reference was sought in the year 2008 i.e. after 12 years. (2) The reference could not have been made when decree was existing in favour of the petitioner and had not been challenged. (3) The reference was answered despite death of legal heir Santosh during the intervening period thus reference has been decided in favour of a dead person without bringing his or her legal heirs on record. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record. 4. The perusal of the order for reference and the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue do not show that any of the issues raised herein was before the revenue courts other than of delay. The petitioners have made out a new case for the first time before this court. 4. The perusal of the order for reference and the subsequent order of the Board of Revenue do not show that any of the issues raised herein was before the revenue courts other than of delay. The petitioners have made out a new case for the first time before this court. In any case, this court is dealing with all the issues but with the aforesaid remark. 5. The first issue is about the delay. The perusal of the order for reference of the case shows that after allotment of the land to Mool Chand, a member of Schedule Caste Community, the petitioners preferred a suit for cancellation of allotment. The suit was decreed based on settlement. The Additional Collector, while making reference took notice of the allegation that summons were not served on Mool Chand, thus a doubt has been created on the settlement itself. The widow of Mool Chand had no knowledge as even Mool Chand was not knowing about the decree though compromise alleged to contain his signature. 6. After the death of Mool Chand, widow could not know about the entry of the name of the petitioners when she made an application to obtain copy of Jamabandi. Immediately, after knowing about it, she made an application to make a reference of the case. It was mainly for the reason that a land belonging to the Schedule Caste cannot be transferred to other caste as it is hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955. 7. In the instant case, Mool Chand was belonging to Schedule Caste, whereas petitioners are OBC. It is settled law that even a compromise decree permitting transfer of land from Schedule Caste to non-SC is non est and void. The fact aforesaid has been mentioned in the reference order. It otherwise justify and explain delay in seeking reference. The Additional Collector has recorded finding on the issue of delay when it was contested by the petitioner. 8. The issue of delay was properly explained before the Additional Collector while making reference. The Board of Revenue also took note of the aforesaid issue and gave opinion adverse to the petitioners. On the facts available on record, I find that the intervening period has been explained properly thus case is not hit by delay. 9. The second issue is in reference to the decree dated 13.2.1996 on a suit preferred by the petitioners. The Board of Revenue also took note of the aforesaid issue and gave opinion adverse to the petitioners. On the facts available on record, I find that the intervening period has been explained properly thus case is not hit by delay. 9. The second issue is in reference to the decree dated 13.2.1996 on a suit preferred by the petitioners. It is said to be based on settlement. The said settlement and decree are hit by Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and thus are nullity. A non est decree cannot be made basis to claim any right, rather, reference in such case is permissible. I am not going on the issue as to whether settlement was signed by Mool Chand or not or as to whether he was even served with the summons or not. The facts aforesaid have already been dealt with by the Additional Collector while making reference. The non est decree was not required to be challenged rather, a reference can be sought for the aforesaid. 10. At this stage, reference of Section 42 of the Act of 1955 needs to be given again. The provision aforesaid prohibits transfer of land belonging to the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribes to other caste. The aforesaid provision has been taken into consideration by the Board of Revenue to answer the reference. In view of finding on the legal issue, that too, in reference to judgment cited by the parties, I do not find that even the second issue is made out. 11. The third issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order was passed against a dead person. The reference was sought by the widow of Mool Chand namely Ratan. Subsequent to the order of reference, she died thus her legal heir Santosh was brought on record. It seems that Santosh also died but nobody brought this fact into notice of the court. If the reference is answered against deceased then, definitely, it affects but, herein, reference has been answered in her favour. The Board of Revenue was not made aware about the death. The petitioners did not file a review petition on the aforesaid ground rather maintained a writ petition by impleading dead person as a party. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground. The Board of Revenue was not made aware about the death. The petitioners did not file a review petition on the aforesaid ground rather maintained a writ petition by impleading dead person as a party. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground. It is because petitioners knowing about the death of Santosh did not make an application to bring her legal heirs on record thus they have pursued the writ petition against a dead person. The reference of the judgment in the cases of Karedia Parthasaradhi v. Gangula Ramanamma (D) Through Lrs and Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC 891 and Subhan Khan v. Board of Revenue & Ors. reported in 2005(1) DNJ [Raj.] 539 has been given to show that without determination about legal heirs, matter cannot be decided on merit. The judgment aforesaid goes against the petitioners. It is for the reason that while filing the writ petition, they did not bring legal heirs of Santosh on record yet pursued this court to pass an interim order without determination of legal heirs. Secondly, petitioner could know about the death of Santosh on an application filed by the other side, but instead of filing an application to bring legal heirs on record, it was contested. 12. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the third argument, rather, if accepted, the writ petition itself is incompetent as it has been filed against a dead person. It is for the reason that other parties are not contesting respondents but are proforma parties. 13. For all the reasons given above, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the orders passed by the courts below. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.