JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the orders dated 26/09/2018, 28/09/2018 and 14/01/2019, rejecting reference made by the Collector, making amendments and rejecting review petition filed by the petitioners respectively. 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that vide registered sale deed dated 26/11/1973 father of the petitioners sold piece of land of ten Khasras measuring 15 Bighas 10 Biswas having corresponding seven new Khasra numbers measuring 3.88 hectares in favour of the respondent no.2. It is submitted that the petitioners' father is from Scheduled Caste while respondent no.2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe. On 03/10/1975, the Sarpanch, gram Panchayat, Bhankrota sanctioned mutation on the basis of the aforesaid sale deed. On 17/03/1990, the respondent no.2 filed an application before the Assistant Settlement Officer for issuing Settlement Parcha in her name and for entering her name in revenue records. On 20/03/1990, the Assistant Settlement Officer made observations with regard to sale of land from SC person to ST but further observed that such mutation could not be cancelled by the department and approved the mutation in favour of the respondent no.2 w.e.f. 1973. After 34 years, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities on 20/07/2007 seeking mutation of the land in their favour after death of their father Ramchandra and an application was submitted to the Collector by them on 16/08/2007 alleging violation of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and to make a reference to the Board of Revenue under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for seeking cancellation of the mutation dated 03/10/1975. The Collector registered the Reference No.133/2007 and after hearing of the affected parties sent the reference to the Board of Revenue vide its order dated 16/11/2016 seeking cancellation of mutation dated 03/10/1975. The Board of Revenue rejected the reference vide its order dated 26/09/2018 on the ground of extraordinary delay and latches. Certain corrections were made in its order vide order dated 28/09/2018. The review petition was preferred by the petitioners wherein written submissions were also filed. The Board of Revenue, however, rejected the review petition vide its order dated 14/01/2019. 3. The Board of Revenue rejected the reference vide its order dated 26/09/2018 on the ground of extraordinary delay and latches. Certain corrections were made in its order vide order dated 28/09/2018. The review petition was preferred by the petitioners wherein written submissions were also filed. The Board of Revenue, however, rejected the review petition vide its order dated 14/01/2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue did not give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the order was passed at their back only on the ground of limitation although limitation does not apply to the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel further submitted that name of counsel for the petitioners was falsely written in the order-sheet whereas the fact is that the petitioners' counsel was conveyed on 06/09/2018 that the next date of hearing was 12/12/2018. It is submitted that the Board of Revenue has preponed the date and without hearing counsel for the petitioners passed the order. It is submitted further that on 28/09/2018 again, the petitioners' counsel was not heard while making corrections. It is also stated that on 28/09/2018, there was strike of the staff of the Board of Revenue and therefore, the petitioners filed an application on 02/11/2018 seeking review of the order dated 26/09/2018 read with order dated 28/09/2018. However, the same was rejected vide order dated 14/01/2019 and therefore, feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that Section 82 of the Act of 1956 does not prescribe any limitation under the law for making reference to the Board of Revenue for setting aside any illegal proceedings. The sale carried on 26/11/1973 was void being in violation of Section 42(b) of the Act of 1955. It was submitted that on technical ground, the meritorious case could not have been thrown away by the Board of Revenue and the mutation No.212 opened by the Gram Panchayat was also not in accordance with law and the Sarpanch has travelled beyond his jurisdiction and under the influence of father of the respondent no.2. It was further submitted that the petitioners have come to know about the sale deed only after death of their father. It was further submitted that the petitioners have come to know about the sale deed only after death of their father. The Board of Revenue has wrongly held limitation to apply stating after more than 30 years having expired, the petitioners have approached the concerned Collector. 3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that action of the Board of Revenue in not giving hearing to counsel for the petitioners is unjustified and prayed that the order passed by the Board of Revenue be set aside and the reference be allowed and the mutation opened on 03/10/1975 be set aside. 3.3 In written submissions filed, the aforesaid facts have been reiterated. Further, it has been stated that the High Court in its judgment passed in Budh Dan Vs. Board of Revenue & Ors., 2005 RRD 97 held that delegation of powers to Gram Panchayat under Section 260(1)(b) of the Act of 1956 is illegal. It is further submitted that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is perverse. There was no occasion to refer to Section 175 of the Act of 1955 by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel relied on judgment rendered in Chiman Lal Vs. state of Raj. & ors., (2000) 1 WLN(Raj) 200 to submit that there the limitation is not provided, the Courts cannot apply the same. He further relied on judgment in Kaloo Chand & ors. Vs. The Board of Revenue & Ors., (2003) 1 DNJ 315 (Raj) to submit that the reference was accepted after almost thirty years. He also relied on judgment in Raju Ram Vs. The State of Raj. & ors., (1999) 2 WLC(Raj) 610 where reference was accepted after 24 years. He also relied on judgment in Mangi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., (1998) 1 WLC(Raj) 625 where reference was accepted after 20 years and also relied on judgment in Kasturi Bai (Smt.) & ors. Vs. State of Raj. & ors.,2002 9 RBJ 529 to submit that the limitation would not apply to reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956. Learned counsel also relied on judgments in Balvant N. Viswamitra & ors. Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) & ors., (2004) 8 SCC 706 ; Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & ors. Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & ors.,2013 19 SCC 136 and Union of India Vs. Learned counsel also relied on judgments in Balvant N. Viswamitra & ors. Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) & ors., (2004) 8 SCC 706 ; Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & ors. Vs. Director, Health Services, Haryana & ors.,2013 19 SCC 136 and Union of India Vs. Swaran Singh & ors., (1997) AIR SC 462 with regard to lack of jurisdiction of Panchayat and also relied on Johra & ors. Vs. State of Haryana & ors., (2019) AIR SC 542 to submit that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the Board of Hearing did not give any opportunity of hearing. 4. With the consent of counsels, the writ petition was heard at admission stage finally. 5. Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 before the learned court below filed an affidavit stating that he was appointed as counsel by respondent no.2 after hearing both the parties as well as Government Counsel, the judgment was reserved on 06/09/2018. Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate, learned counsel was present who represented respondents No.2 to 8 (petitioners herein) in the reference. The review application was also preferred and Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate appeared with Shri Mukesh Jain, Advocate and again agrued the case and the affidavit filed by Shri Rakesh Arora, Advocate was incorrect. Certified copy of the order-sheet of the Board of Revenue has also been filed filed on 06/09/2018 wherein names of Shri Rakesh Arora, Shri VP Singh and Shri Ashok Kumar Agarwal have been mentioned in support of the affidavit which states that arguments were heard and judgment was reserved. 5.1 Written submissions were also filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 stating that the reference has been made in relation to 1972 mutation after more than 40 years. It is submitted that the petitioners, who are private persons and in whose name the mutation was not existing, have no locus-standi and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the State of Rajasthan at no point of time challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel also relied on judgment in Babu Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue & ors., (2009) 3 WLC(Raj) 258 to submit that reference after 35 years cannot be accepted even though no limitation is prescribed. It is further submitted that the State of Rajasthan at no point of time challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue. Learned counsel also relied on judgment in Babu Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue & ors., (2009) 3 WLC(Raj) 258 to submit that reference after 35 years cannot be accepted even though no limitation is prescribed. It has been further submitted that as per Section 63(iv) of the Act of 1955 tenancy rights have been extinguished and the right to repossess as barred by limitation after 30 years. As per Section 175 of the Act of 1955, the ejectment proceedings also are barred on the basis of illegal transfer or subletting and the period of 30 years cannot be further extended as held by the Supreme Court in Ram Karan (Dead) through LR s & ors. Vs. State of Raj. & ors., (2014) AIR SC 3070 Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent no.2 was in possession of the land soon after the land was purchased by father of the respondent no.2 from father of the petitioners and was cultivating the land in question. After 40 years, rights have been created, both were in possession as well as adverse possession and during the lifetime of father of the petitioners, no objection was ever raised for the simple reason that the land actually belonged to respondent no.2's father who had been wrongfully entered in the name of father of the petitioners. Thus, it was not a case of transfer from SC to ST but was original a case of transfer from ST to SC and then back SC to ST. The respondent no.2 is in continuous and peaceful possession of the land and all statutory dues have been paid. The respondent no.2 is also belonging to ST category and the land has come in her favour by registered sale deed which has not been set aside. After 41 years, rights have been crystallized and the petitioners by one way or the other want to stretch away the land held by the respondent no.2. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in Anandi Lal Vs. State,1996 RRD 170 to submit that the respondent no.2 is in cultivatory possession over the land which is continuing after more than 60 years. Learned counsel relies on the judgment in Anandi Lal Vs. State,1996 RRD 170 to submit that the respondent no.2 is in cultivatory possession over the land which is continuing after more than 60 years. Learned counsel further submitted that the Board of Revenue in its order dated 28/09/2018 only made arithmetical errors and an attempt has been made to scandalize the proceedings which should not be allowed. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the judgments which have been cited, as referred to herein above. 7. Before dealing with the submissions, it would be appropriate to quote Section 42 of the Act of 1955 and Sections 82 and 175 of the Act of 1956 which read as under:- "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) Omitted. (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. (c) Omitted. 82. (bb) such sale, gift or bequest, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), is by a member of Saharia Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the said Saharia tribe. (c) Omitted. 82. Power [xxx] to call for records and proceedings and reference to State Government or Board - [xxx] The Settlement Commissioner or the Director of Land Records [or a Collector] may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by the revenue court or officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or properiety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings; and, if he is of opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by such subordinate court or officer should be varied cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board, if the case is of a judicial nature or connected with settlement, or for the orders of the State Government if the case is of a non-judicial nature not connected with Settlement; and the Board or the State Government, as the case may be, shall thereupon pass such order as it thinks fit. 175. Term of Settlement - The term of every settlement made under this Act shall be twenty years: Provided that the State Government may extend the term beyond twenty years, having regard to he pressure of the population on the land, the extent to which culturable area is cultivated and the fullness of the rentals: Provided also that for special reasons to be recorded, such as a serious deterioration, considerable concealment of assets or the deliberate and extensive throwing of land out of cultivation, or for any other sufficient reasons, the State Government may sanction shorter term of settlement for any local area : Provided further that in the case of a first settlement as well as settlement for precarious tracts and alluvial areas the State Government may sanction shorter terms and make rules for immediate revision of settlement." 8. In my considered opinion, the reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 has to be made by the State. In my considered opinion, the reference under Section 82 of the Act of 1956 has to be made by the State. If at all, any land has been transferred by SC category person to a non-SC person, such proceedings shall have to be declared void by the Board of Revenue and then it would vest with the State Government. However, the State Government has not challenged the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the present case. No right can be said to be created in favour of the petitioners as their father had admittedly sold the land by registered sale deed in favour of father of the respondent no.2 in the year 1972. Apparently, upto lifetime of father of the petitioners, no objection was raised and this Court is satisfied that there may be a cogent reason for transferring the land from SC to ST by registered sale but at the relevant time, as the respondent no.2 claims that originally the land was in name of her father and they were having all throughout possession over it. Section 42 of the Act of 1955 also protects the land of the ST and restrains from transferring of land from ST to a general category. It is noticed that for last almost 60 years, the land has been in possession of the ST person. The limitation although may not apply to provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1956, however, one has to adopt a pragmatic approach. A person who has been continuously cultivating the land and having possession for more than 40 years, cannot be said to have no vested right created in his/her favour. The principle laid down relating to right by way of adverse possession, has to be considered in the present circumstances. So far as the petitioners are concerned, admittedly they have taken up the issue only after 2008 i.e. after death of their father. Thus, from 1972 till 2008, the respondent no.2 has been continuously cultivating the land and was having possession without any objection which comes to 36 years. Reference has been made by the Collector thereafter on 16/11/2016. Thus, upto 2016, the reference was also not made. Thus, from 1972 till 2008, the respondent no.2 has been continuously cultivating the land and was having possession without any objection which comes to 36 years. Reference has been made by the Collector thereafter on 16/11/2016. Thus, upto 2016, the reference was also not made. In the circumstances, it would be wholly unwise to undo what has been done way back in the year 1972, moreover, as no right would be created in favour of the petitioners who have accepted the amount received by way of sale deed and utilized the same for aforesaid number of years. At the same time, the respondent no.3 is from ST category and a woman. There are special provisions under the Act relating to women also. 9. It is also noticed that the petitioners have tried to scandalize the Court proceedings. It is well settled that the Court note-sheets are centum-centurion and are beyond challenge. Affidavits of the lawyer for the petitioners and that of the respondent no.2 are on record. However, without going into correctness of the affidavits, a look at the certified copy of the order-sheet of the file dated 06/09/2018, which has been placed on record alongwith additional affidavit by the respondent no.2 mentions the attendance of all the counsels i.e. for the Government as well as of the petitioners and respondent no.2 while reserving the judgment on 06/09/2018. In such circumstances, the allegation levelled by the petitioners that they were not represented nor they were heard, is found to be false and is an attempt to scandalize the Court proceedings is deprecated. 10. The law laid down by this Court in Babu Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue & ors. (supra), which relies on the earlier judgment passed in the case of Anandi Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., (1996) 2 WLC(Raj) 36 , would have direct application in the present case. In the aforesaid case of Babu Singh Vs. The Board of Revenue & ors. (supra), this Court held as under:- "8. In the present case, the petitioners' father was given khatedari rights as far back as 1958. Obviously, between 1958 to 1993, the family would have spent a sufficient part of their earning for the improvement of the land. The family would have become dependent for their livelihood upon the said land. (supra), this Court held as under:- "8. In the present case, the petitioners' father was given khatedari rights as far back as 1958. Obviously, between 1958 to 1993, the family would have spent a sufficient part of their earning for the improvement of the land. The family would have become dependent for their livelihood upon the said land. Therefore, after inordinate delay of thirty-five years, neither the title for the possession of the said land can be disturbed. Therefore, the additional Collector has committed illegality while making the reference to the Board. Similarly the Board has failed to consider the fact that the reference was made after inordinate delay of thirty-five years. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.07.1994 passed by the Additional Collector and the order dated 28.04.1995 passed by the Board of Revenue." 11. The reference is hopelessly barred by latches and delay. Taking clue from Section 175 of the Act of 1955 which provides 30 years limitation and cannot be extended in view of the judgment in Ram Karan (Dead) through LR's & ors. Vs. State of Raj. & ors (supra), this Court is unable to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners as there is no limitation provided under Section 82 of the Act of the Act of 1956, a reference made after 41 years, ought to be accepted. 12. There has to be some stability and finality to proceedings. The law of the land is to be understood for the purpose of bringing peaceful environment amongst its citizens and not to create chaos in lives of the individuals. In view of the law as settled by the Apex Court and by this Court earlier, the orders passed by the Board of Revenue dated 26/09/2018, 28/09/2018 and 14/01/2019 do not warrant interference and the same are upheld. 13. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit. All pending applications also stand dismissed.