(1) LRs of Gurbachhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : O R D E R : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5699/2008. (LRs of Gurbachhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others) DATE OF ORDER : October 22nd, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopal Krishan Vyas _______________________________ Mr. N.L. Joshi for petitioner. BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Annex.-9 dated 19.12.2006 passed by the Addl. District Collector, Hanumangarh and judgment impugned dated 23.04.2008 passed by the Revenue Board in Appeal/LR No.5755/1997. Admittedly, the land in question in respect of which the petitioner is claiming entry of his name in the revenue record belongs to scheduled caste person and the petitioner's claim was rejected by the Addl. District Collector as well as Board of Revenue on the ground that as per Section 42-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the transfer of land in question is in violation of the provisions thereof, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get entry of his name in the revenue record on the basis of the so-called adjudication made by the Assistant (2) LRs of Gurbachhan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others Collector, Sangaria in the suit filed by the Tehsildar, Sangaria dated 30.04.1988 whereby the Assistant Collector, Sangaria rejected the suit of cancellation of “tabadala” on the ground of limitation and not impleading the proper party. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court towards the judgment reported in 1995 DNJ 592. In my opinion, when admittedly, the land in question belongs to scheduled caste person, then, there is no question of interference in the impugned order as well as judgment passed by the Revenue Board. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the cited case, question of land belonging to scheduled caste person was not the subject-matter whereas, in the case on hand, the rejection of the petitioner is precisely based on violation of Section 42-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. In that view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is summarily dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.