Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE PRESENT APPEAL AND THE REFERENCE MADE THEREIN 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 SBCivil Writ Petition No.1499/2002, State of Rajasthan v. 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 Section 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 Section 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:-

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 06.09.2000. Board of Revenue, however, dismissed the reference vide order dated 24.012002. 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.