State of Rajasthan, Through Collector (Revenue) Jaipur v. Prabhunarayan Bagra S/o

Jagdish, Aged About 35 Years, Son Of Shri

2. 2/1. Ramnarayan Bhagwan Sahay, S/o Late Shri Chanda Smt. Gopali, Aged About 55 Years, W/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay 2/2 . Govind, Aged About 18 Years, Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahay 2/3. Sawatri, Aged About 22 Years, D/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay 2/4. Sumitra, Aged About 20 Years, D/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, Both Are R/o Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus

2. 2/1. 2/2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Collector Jaipur. Prabhunarayan Bagra Son Of Shri Ganesharam, (Deceased) Through L.r. Parvati Devi, Wife Of Prabhunarayan Anil Kumar Adopt. Son Of Prabhunarayan, (Deceased) Through L.r.s. 2/2/1. Anita Devi, Wife Of Anil Kumar 2/2/2. Pramod Son Of Anil Kumar (Minor), Mother Anita Devi 2/2/3. Mayuri D/o Of Anil Kumar (Minor), Mother Anita Devi

4. 4/1. 4/2.

5. Krishan Gopal Rungta Son Of Mahaveer Prasad Rungta, R/o Man House, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. Bhagwana Son Of Dula, (Deceased) Through L.r.s. Jagdish, Son Of Bhagwana Babulal, Son Of Bhagwana Ramchandra Son Of Shyobaksha, (Deceased) Through L.r.s. [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (5 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] 5/1. 5/2. 5/3. 5/4.

7. 7/1. 7/2. 7/3. 7/4.

8. 8/1. 8/2. 8/3. 8/4. 8/5. 8/6. 8/7. 8/8. 8/9. Ramanrayan, Son Of Ramchandra Ramkumar, Son Of Ramchandra Ravikumar, Son Of Ramchandra Rajaram, Son Of Ramchandra Laduram Son Of Ganesh, R/o Meenawala Tehsil, Jaipur. Chanda Son Of Laxman, (Deceased) Through Lrs - Laduram, Son Of Chanda Nanulal, Son Of Chanda Gyarsil Devi, D/o Chanda Devi Panchi Devi, Wife Of Chanda, All R/o Meenawala Tehsil Jaipur. Chotu Son Of Chanda, (Deceased) Through Lrs Gopali, D/o Of Ramanarayan Manbhar, D/o Of Ramanarayan Mamta, D/o Of Ramanarayan Posha Devi, Wife Of Ramanarayan Chitar, Son Of Chothu Kalyani, D/o Of Chothu Bardi, D/o Chothu Ganga, D/o Chothu Babudi, D/o Chothu 8/10. Dhapu, Wife Of Chotu (Deceased) Through Lrs- 8/10/1. Chitar, Son Of Chotu 8/10/2. Jagdish, Son Of Ramanarayan 8/10/3. Parvati Devi, Wife Of Ramanarayan, All R/o Panchawali Tehsil Jaipur.

9. 9/1. 9/2. Borya Son Of Chanda, (Deceased) Through Lrs - Rawad, Son Of Boraya Mahadev, Son Of Boraya (Deceased) Through Lrs- 9/2/1. Prabhati, Wife Of Mahadev 9/2/2. Laduram, Adopted Son Of Mahadev 9/3. 9/4. 9/5. Narayani, D/o Of Boraya Chota, D/o Boraya Bachi Devi, D/o Of Boraya [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (6 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] 9/6. 9/7. 9/8. 9/9. Nangi, Wife Of Boraya (Deceased) (Name Tark) Kajod, Son Of Ramnkawar Ladu, Son Of Ramkanwar Madan, Son Of Ramkanwar 9/10. Mukesh, Son Of Ramkanwar 9/11. Meena, D/o Of Ramkanwar 9/12. Chota Devi, Wife Of Ramkanwar, All R/o Panchayali Dhani, Tehsil Jaipur.

10. Anil Special Steel Industry Limited, Village Kanakpura Post Meenawala Tehsil And District Jaipur Through Chairaman And Managing Director Sudhir Khetan Son Of S.l. Khetan R/o 17/1, Vrindavan Civil Lines, In Front Raj Bhagwan Jaipur.

11. M/s. Sanskar Land Developrs Pvt. Ltd., Through Director Riya K. Thariyamal Wife Of Kanhiyalal Thariyamal indu (Sindhi) R/o Plot No. 4 B, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

12. Ramchandra Son Of Ganga Bax, (Deceased) Through Lrs- 12/1. Narayan Son Of Ramchandra, (Deceased) Through Lrs 12/1/1. Babulal, Son Of Narayan 12/1/2. Suresh, Son Of Narayan 12/1/3. Ramjilal, Son Of Narayan 12/1/4. Choti Devi, Wife Of Narayan 12/2. Sitaram, Son Of Ramchandra 12/3. Rampal, Son Of Ramchandra (Deceased) Through Lrs 12/3/1. Puranmal, Son Of Rampal 12/3/2. Shankarlal, Son Of Rampal 12/3/3. Hemraj, Son Of Rampal 12/3/4. Shanti Devi, Wife Of Rampal 12/4. Ramniwas, Son Of Narayan, All Caste Meena, R/o Village Meenawala Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16190/2019

1. Laduram Adopted Son Of Mahadev, Aged About 55 [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (7 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] Years, R/o Pachyali Dhani, Tehsil Jaipur.

2. Nanulal S/o Chanda, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. 3/1. 3/2. Board Of Revenue, Ajmer, Through Its Registrar. Prabhunarayan Bagda S/o Shri Ganesha Ram (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs Parvati Devi, W/o Prabhunarayan Anil Kumar Adopted Son Of Prabhunarayan (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 3/2/1. Anita Devi, W/o Anil Kumar 3/2/2. Pramod Kumar Anil Kumar, Minor Through Anita Devi (Mother) 3/2/3. Mayuri S/o Anil Kumar, Minor, Through Anita Devi (Mother)

5. Krishangopal Rungta S/o Mahaveerprasad Rungta, R/o Man House, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. Anil Special Steel Industry Ltd., Village Kanakpura Post Meenawala Tehsil And District Jaipur Through Chairmen And Managing Director Sudhir Khetan S/o S.l. Khetan, R/o 17/1, Vrandhavan Civil Line, Raj Bhawan Ke Samne, Jaipur.

6. M/s. Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Through Director Riya K. Thariyamal W/o Kanhiyalal Thariyamal, R/o Plot No.4B, Civil Lines, Jaipur.

7. Ramchandra S/o Gangabaksh (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 7/1. Narayan S/o Ramchandra (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 7/1/1. Babulal S/o Narayan, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/1/2. Suresh S/o Narayan, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/1/3. Ramjilal S/o Narayan, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (8 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] And District Jaipur. 7/1/4. Choti Devi W/o Narayan, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/2. Sitaram S/o Ramchandra, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/3. Rampal S/o Ramchandra (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 7/3/1. Puranmal S/o Rampal, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/3/2. Shankarlal S/o Rampal, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/3/3. Hemraj S/o Rampal, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/3/4. Shantidevi W/o Rampal, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur. 7/4. Ramniwas S/o Narayan, R/o Village Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur.

8. 8/1. 8/2.

9. Bhagwana S/o Dula (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs Jagdish S/o Bhagwana, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. Babulal S/o Bhagwana, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. Ramchandra S/o Syobaksh (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 9/1. Ramnarayan S/o Ramchandra, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. 9/2. Ramkumar S/o Ramchandra, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. 9/3. Ravikumar S/o Ramchandra, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. 9/4. Rajaram S/o Ramchandra, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur.

11. Laduram S/o Ganesh, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. Chanda S/o Laxman (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 11/1. Laduram S/o Chanda, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. 11/2. Bhagwan Sahay S/o Chanda, R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur. 11/3. Gyarsidevi D/o Chanda (Deceased), R/o Meenawala, [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (9 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] Tehsil Jaipur. 11/4. Panchidevi W/o Chanda (Name Argument) (Deceased), R/o Meenawala, Tehsil Jaipur.

12. Chothu S/o Chanda (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 12/1. Jagdish S/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/2. Gopali D/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/3. Manbhar D/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/4. Mamta D/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/5. Poshadevi W/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/6. Chitar S/o Chothu (Deceased), Tehsil Jaipur. 12/7. Kalyani D/o Chothu, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/8. Bardi D/o Chothu, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/9. Ganga D/o Chothu, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/10. Babudi D/o Chothu, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/11. Dhapu W/o Chothu (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 12/11/1 Chitar S/o Chothu, Tehsil Jaipur. . 12/11.2. Jagdish S/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur. 12/11.3. Parvatidevi W/o Ramnarayan, Tehsil Jaipur.

13. Bhorya S/o Chand (Deceased), Through Legal Heirs 13/1. Revad S/o Bhorya, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/2. Mahadev S/o Bhorya (Deceased), Through Legal Heir. 13/2/1. Prabhati W/o Mahadev, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/3. Narayani D/o Bhorya, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/4. Chota D/o Bhorya, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/5. Bacchidevi D/o Bhorya, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/6. Nangi W/o Bhorya (Deceased) Name Argument, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/7. Kajod S/o Ramkavar, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/8. Ladu S/o Ramkavar, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/9. Madan S/o Ramkavar, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/10. Mukesh S/o Ramkavar, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/11. Meena D/o Ramkavar, Tehsil Jaipur. 13/12. Chotadevi W/o Ramkavar, Tehsil Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (10 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 41/2023

1. Ramchandra Son Of Ganga Bax (Deceased), Through Lrs. 1/1. Narayan Son Of Ramchandra (Deceased), Through Lrs. 1/1/1. Babulal, Son Of Narayan 1/1/2. Suresh, Son Of Narayan 1/1/3. Ramjilal, Son Of Narayan 1/1/4. Choti Devi, Wife Of Narayan 1/2. 1/3. Sitaram, Son Of Ramchandra Rampal Son Of Ramchandra (Deceased), Through Lrs. 1/3/1. Puranmal, Son Of Rampal 1/3/2. Shankarlal, Son Of Rampal 1/3/3. Hemraj, Son Of Rampal 1/3/4. Shanti Devi, Wife Of Rampal 1/4. Ramniwas Son Of Narayan, All R/o Village Meenawala Tehsil And District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus

2. 2/1. 2/2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Collector Jaipur. Prabhunarayan Bagra Son Of Shri Ganesharam (Deceased), Through L.r. Parvati Devi, Wife Of Prabhunarayan Anil Kumar Adopt Son Of Prabhunarayan (Deceased), Through Lrs. 2/2/1. Anita Devi, Wife Of Anil Kumar 2/2/2. Pramod, Son Of Anil Kumar (Minor) 2/2/3. Mayuri D/o Anil Kumar (Minor), Through Their Mother Anita Devi All R/o Village Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. 4/1. 4/2. Krishan Gopal Rungta Son Of Mahveer Prasad Rungta, R/o Man House, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur. Bhagwana Son Of Dula (Deceased), Through L.r.s. Jagdish, Son Of Bhagwana Babulal, Son Of Bhagwana [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (11 of 19) [CW-4760/2020]

5. Ramchandra Son Of Shyobaksha (Deceased), Through Lrs. Ramnarayan, Son Of Ramchandra Ramkumar, Son Of Ramchandra Ravikumar, Son Of Ramchandra Rajaram, Son Of Ramchandra Laduram Son Of Ganesh, All R/o Meenawala Tehsil Jaipur. Chanda Son Of Laxman (Deceased), Through Lrs. Laduran, Son Of Chanda Bhagwan Sahai, Son Of Chanda Nanulal, Son Of Chanda Gyarsi Devi, D/o Chanda Panchi Devi Wife Of Chanda, All R/o Meenawala Tehsil Jaipur. Chothu Son Of Chanda (Deceased), Through Lrs. Jagdish, S/o Ramnarayan Gopali, D/o Ramnarayan Manbhar, D/o Ramnarayan Mamta, D/o Ramnarayan Posha Devi, Wife Of Ramnarayan Chhitar, Son Of Chothu Kalyani, D/o Chothu Bardi, D/o Chothu Ganga, D/o Chothu 5/1. 5/2. 5/3. 5/4.

7. 7/1. 7/2. 7/3. 7/4. 7/5.

8. 8/1. 8/2. 8/3. 8/4. 8/5. 8/6. 8/7. 8/8. 8/9. 8/10. Babudi, D/o Chothu 8/11. Dhapu Wife Of Chothu (Deceased), Through Lrs. 8/11/1. Chhitar, Son Of Chothu 8/11/2. Jagdish, Son Of Ramnarayan 8/11/3. Parvati Devi Wife Of Ramnarayan, All R/o Panchawali Tehsil Jaipur.

9. 9/1. 9/2. Bhorya Son Of Chanda (Deceased), Through Lrs. Rewad, Son Of Bhoraya Mahadev Son Of Bhoraya (Deceased), Through Lrs. [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (12 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] 9/2/1. Prabhati, Wife Of Mahadev 9/2/2. Laduram, Adopted Son Of Mahadev 9/3. 9/4. 9/5. 9/6. 9/7. 9/8. 9/9. Narayani, D/o Bhorya Chhota, D/o Bhorya Bachi Devi, D/o Bhorya Nangi Wife Of Bhorya (Deceased), (Name Deleted) Kajod, Son Of Ramkanwar Ladu, Son Of Ramkanwar Madan, Son Of Ramkanwar 9/10. Mukesh, Son Of Ramkanwar 9/11. Meena, D/o Ramkanwar 9/12. Chhota Devi Wife Of Ramkanwar, All R/o Panchayati Dhani, Tehsil Jaipur.

10. Anil Special Steel Industry Limited, Village Kanakpura Post Meenawala, Tehsil And District Jaipur Through Chairman And Managing Director Sudhir Khaitan Son Of S.l. Khaitan R/o 17/1, Vrindavan Civil Lines, In Front Raj Bhagwan Jaipur.

11. Mrs. Sanskar Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Through Director Riya K. Thariyamal Wife Of Kanhiyala Thariyamal R/o Plot No. 4 B, Civil Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Neeraj Batra, GC with Ms.Gunjan Chawla Mr.Ravindra Pal Singh Mr.P. C. Bairwa Mr.Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr.Aatish Jain with Mr.Rakesh Kumar Bairwa JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/04/2025

1. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (13 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] parties, arguments have been heard together and all these writ petitions are being decided by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts and the prayer pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4760/2020 is taken into consideration.

3. The instant Writ Petition No.4760/2020 has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that Your Lordships’ may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition; call for and examine the entire record of the case and (a) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof thereby the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 may kindly be quashed and set aside and upheld the order dated 05.10.2001 and the reference of the Government may kindly be allowed. (b) Any other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner.”

4. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short, “the Board”) by which the reference made by the Tehsildar against the registered sale deed dated 12.09.1961 has been rejected on the ground of delay of 34 years in filing the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land bearing Khasra No.37(10.04 Bighas), 42(13.01 Bighas), 34/480(1.10 Bighas) and 115(7.15 Bighas) situated at Village [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (14 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] Meenawala belonged to the recorded Khatedars namely, Bhagwana, Ramchandra, Ladu, Chanda and Bhorya Meena, who fall under the category of Scheduled Tribe, in spite of which, they sold their lands to one Prabhu Narayan Bagra, by way of registered sale deed dated 12.09.1961, and thereafter, in the mutation proceedings the same lands were entered in the name of the said Prabhu Narayan Bagra, who further sold the said lands to one Krishan Gopal Rungta within a period of three months, i.e., on

04.12.1961. Counsel submits that the land bearing Khasra No.115(7.15 Bighas) was subsequently acquired by the Rajasthan State Industrial and Mineral Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the RIICO”), hence, the mutation of the said land was entered into the name of RIICO.

6. Counsel submits that the land belonging to the category of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be sold to a person of General Category, as the same is barred under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act of 1955”), but in spite of the above, the lands were sold by the above five recorded Khatedaars in the revenue records to Prabhu Narayan Bagra, who belongs to General category only.

7. Counsel submits that with respect to illegal transfer of land, an Enquiry Commission of Justice B.P. Beri (hereinafter referred to as “the Beri Commission”) was constituted to examine the matter, who after hearing the versions of the respective parties submitted report that the sale in question was void and has no legal effect, hence, Mr. Prabhu Narayan Bagra did not acquire any right over the lands in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 12.09.1961. [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (15 of 19) [CW-4760/2020]

8. The report further concluded that the sale deed dated

04.12.1961 did not grant any legal right to Mr.Gopal Krishan Rungta. It was further found that Mr.Prabhu Narayan Bagra had no lawful claim over the lands in question and was merely a trespasser. Furthermore, Mr.Krishan Gopal Rungta was also treated as trespasser and the lands possessed by him have been directed to be resumed by the State as landholder.

9. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid report of Beri Commission, the Tehsildar made a reference to the Board of Revenue (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) for cancellation of the mutation entries made in the names of the trespasser and the subsequent trespasser, i.e., Prabhu Narayan Bagra and Gopal Krishan Rungta.

10. Counsel submits that the reference submitted by the State was rejected by the Board vide order dated 03.05.2019, mainly on the ground of delay of 34 years in filing the same. Counsel submits that in such like matters, the provision for limitation would not be applicable.

11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by this Court, which are as follows:- (I) Chiman Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in AIR 2000 Raj 206; (II) Roodaram Vs. The Board of Revenue and Ors. while deciding S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2981/1990 (III) Chhail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 2008(2) DNJ (Raj.)683. [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (16 of 19) [CW-4760/2020]

12. Counsel submits that in view of the above submissions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Board is liable to be quashed and set-aside and the reference petition submitted by the State before the Board is liable to be allowed.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the sale in question was affected way back in the year 1961 and the State Government was sleeping over the matter for a considerable time and somewhere in the year 1978, an application under Section 175 of the Act of 1955 was submitted by the Tehsildar which came to be rejected by the Assistant Collector, Jaipur and the order passed therein was not assailed by the State before any competent Court of law, hence, the same has attained finality. Counsel submits that the reference has been made by the Tehsildar after a huge delay of 34 years and as per the provisions contained under the Act of 1955, the maximum limitation period for filing a reference is 30 years from the date of execution of lease/ transfer deed. Counsel submits that after the aforesaid sale, the property has been further transferred and thereafter, the proceedings under Section 90-B have been effected, therefore, at such stage, interference of this Court is not warranted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2014 SC

14. Counsel also submits that the report of Beri Commission cannot be a sole basis to cancel the mutation entries as the [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (17 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] findings recorded by the said Commission are not conclusive proofs and the same are not enforceable. Counsel submits that all these facts were considered by the Board while passing a reasoned and speaking order, which requires no interference of this Court and all the writ petitions are liable to be rejected.

15. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

16. Perusal of the record as well as the order impugned reflects that the lands in question belongs to five recorded Khatedaars, namely, Bhagwana, Ramchandra, Laddu, Chanda & Bhorya Meena, who fall under the category of Schedule Tribes, and sold the lands in question to one Prabhu Narayan Bagra who belongs to General Category by way of registered sale deed dated

12.09.1961 and thereafter, mutation was entered in his name and he too sold the said lands to one Krishna Gopal Rungta, by way of registered sale deed on 04.12.1961, and the mutation of the said lands was entered in his name. Some part of the land bearing Khasra No.115 has acquired by the RIICO, hence, the mutation of the same was entered in the name of RIICO.

17. It appears that by the orders of the State, an Enquiry Commission was constituted, wherein Justice B.P. Beri was appointed as Chairman, to enquire into the matter. The said committee submitted its report with the observation and finding that the lands in question belong to a particular community, i.e, Meena (ST Category) and the sale executed in favour of the Mr.Prabhu Narayan Bagra (General Category) is void ab initio and unenforceable, in view of the provisions contained under Section 42 of the Act of 1955, which provides that any contract of sale or [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (18 of 19) [CW-4760/2020] sale made by the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe persons in favour of the persons not belonging to that class is void and not enforceable in law. It was also concluded that the capacity of Mr.Prabhu Narayan Bagra was of a trespasser, who does not acquire the rights in the lands in question and similar findings were recorded against the subsequent purchaser Krishna Gopal Rungta too.

18. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid Enquiry Report given by the Beri Commission, the reference was made by the Tehsildar to the Board for cancellation of the mutation entries made in favour of the trespassers.

19. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the reference made by the State has been rejected by the Board on a technical count of being barred by limitation, as the same was submitted, after a delay of 34 years. There are judgments of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court on both sides, with regard to limitation, as relied by the counsel appearing for the rival sides, but perusal of the record/ impugned order reflects that while passing the order impugned, the Board has given a reference of the Enquiry Report of Commission, but no finding has been recorded in this regard and the reference has been rejected only on a technical count of delay of 34 years.

20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the matter is required to be adjudicated in the light of the Enquiry Report given by the Beri Commission and the subsequent events which have occurred in between, i.e. after sale and transfer of the lands in question, by way of the proceeding initiated under Section 90-B of the Act of 1955. [2025:RJ-JP:18184] (19 of 19) [CW-4760/2020]

21. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 03.05.2019 stands quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board for its fresh adjudication on its merit. It goes without saying that the Board would take into consideration each and every document submitted by the respective parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Board on 30.05.2025.

22. Looking to the controversy involved in the matter, it is expected from the Board to decide the reference expeditiously, as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the parties.

23. Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.

24. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the Board would decide the matter on its merits after considering the arguments and documentary evidence of both sides without being prejudiced or influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding these writ petitions. Aayush Sharma /24-27 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J