JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 01.02.2021, passed by the learned Members of the Board of Revenue, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the Board"), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to have purchased a land belonging to Kuka S/o Vena Gameti by way of an agreement to sell dated 12.12.1990. 3. According to the petitioner, said Kuka who earlier claimed himself to be the sole owner of the subject land colluded with Chen Ram who claimed himself to be younger brother of Kuka and obtained a decree declaring both Kuka and Chen Ram to be joint Khatedars/owners of the land. In the suit so filed by Chen Ram, the learned Additional Collector (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") vide order dated 24.12.1992 held that the land in question is a joint Khatedari land. 4. Thereafter, the said land was transferred to Devendra Kumar (respondent No. 1 herein) by way of registered sale deed dated 03.01.1988. 5. Said purchaser Devendra Kumar surrendered the land under erstwhile Section 90B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"), for developing the land for non agricultural use. An order dated 11.09.2009 came to be passed accepting the resumption of .6000 hectare land in favour of the UIT, Udaipur in terms of Section 90B of the Act of 1956. 6. The petitioner challenged the order of vesting dated 11.09.2009. The appellate court vide order dated 11.03.2013 though set aside the resumption order dated 11.09.2020, but at the same time held that the present petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed. 7. Aggrieved against the order of the appellate authority dated 11.03.2013, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, Ajmer under Section 83 and 84 of the Act of 1956, which was registered as Revision Petition No. 3757/2013. 8. The revision petition so filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Board vide order dated 01.02.2021. 9. Mr. 8. The revision petition so filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Board vide order dated 01.02.2021. 9. Mr. R.P. Singaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser, having purchased the subject land from Kuka and, therefore, the same could not have been subjected to proceedings under Section 90B of the Act of 1956, Kuka was not left with any right to surrender as the land had already been sold to the petitioner. 10. He argued that in the suit filed by Chen Ram against Kuka, he colluded and filed a reply admitting contents of the plaint and in furtherance of the consent, a decree came to be passed by the Additional Collector, Udaipur on 24.12.1992, whereby Chen Ram and Kuka both were declared joint Khatedars. It was argued that the decree dated 24.12.1992, passed by the Additional Collector, Udaipur was obtained by fraud and, therefore, petitioner's right flowing from the agreement to sell cannot be ignored and such decree cannot operate his rights. 11. He, therefore, argued that the Divisional Commissioner, so also the Board of Revenue has not properly appreciated the material on record and reached to a conclusion that the petitioner does not have any right, title or interest in the property. 12. Heard. 13. Indisputably, Kuka, the owner of the land belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, whereas the petitioner is of Scheduled Caste community. 14. Such being the position, Kuka could not have sold the land to the present petitioner, who is of Scheduled Caste community, in view of the clear embargo of the Section 49A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 15. That apart, the petitioner is claiming his rights on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 12.12.1990 simplicitor; there is no registered sale deed in his favour therefore purported transfer cannot be said to be a valid transfer being hit by Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 16. This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 01.02.2021, passed by the Board of Revenue, whereby order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Udaipur dated 11.03.2013 has been affirmed. 17. The writ petition therefore fails. 18. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.