1 D.B.Civil review Petition No.145/2008 Uma Shankar & ors. V/s State of Raj. & ors. 12.9.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.K.K.Mehrishi with Mr.Harsh Kulshrestha for the petitioners. This review application has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 8th May,2007 passed by this Court in special appeal no.582/07. Shri K.K.Mehrishi, Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that this Court while deciding the special appeal did not notice the provisions of Section 183-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the case was decided only on consideration of provisions of Section 183 of the Act. It was argued that Section 183-B of the Act is a special provision introduced in the year 1989 for ejectment of trespasser of the land held by a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and therefore, it being special provision, should receive precedence over the provisions of Section 175 of the Act. Upon being pointedly asked as to in which part of the memorandum of the appeal, reference was made to the provisions of Section 183B of the Act, learned counsel was unable to show that any reference was made to the provisions of Section 183B of the Act in the pleadings. This point, even otherwise was never raised by the petitioners during arguments of appeal. In fact, the suit in the present case was filed under 2 section 183 of the Act in 1976 and the provisions of Section 183B were introduced in the year 1989, therefore, its retrospective application to the proceedings initiated earlier in 1976 is very much doubtful. However, even if it is assumed that the provisions of Section 183B can be applied to already pending proceedings, the moot question that was required to be decided by this court was whether the proceedings under section 183 of the Act, which were instituted by the review-petitioners herein, should receive the precedence over the proceedings under section 175 initiated by Tehsildar on the ground that the review-petitioners themselves, being members of scheduled caste had violated the terms of the provisions of section 42(b) of the Act by transferring the land to the person belonging to scheduled caste to the person of general community, and this question was decided by categorically holding that both the transferor i.e. petitioners and the transferee were liable to be proceeded against under section 175 for ejectment. Thus, despite subsequent introduction of provision of Section 183B, decision of the Court on that point would even apply to the proceedings under section 183B of the Act vis-a-vis section 175, as both section 183B and section 183 are meant for removal of encroachment. Present review petition is thus nothing but an attempt for rehearing of the matter on the points which were already considered and decided. 3 We, therefore, do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. This review application accordingly is dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar