IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6163/2008 Bhagirath Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 8.7.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Govind Choudhary, for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure-4)passed under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while it is correct that the land in dispute was in the khatedari of one Devi Lal who was the member of Scheduled Tribe, by caste Meena, he sold the land vide registered sale deed to one Balchand in the year 1972 who was not the member of Scheduled Caste. The purchaser Balchand, who was by caste Mehar a member of Scheduled Caste sold the land to the petitioner Bhagirath, who was also Mehar by caste and member of the Scheduled Caste but treating the original sale made by Devi Lal in favour of Balchand in the year 1972 to be contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthjan Tenancy Act 1955 notices were issued to Devilal and ultimately the order under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act came to be passed. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the subsequent purchaser from Balchand the Vendee. He submits that Balchand being a member of the Scheduled Caste was entitled to sell the land to the petitioner who was the member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore the sale in favour of the petitioner is perfectly valid and not contrary to any provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is also contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing any order under Section 175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act the respondents ought to have issued the notice to the petitioner who was the subsequent purchaser and recorded as khatedar. Admittedly the notices have been issued to Devi Lal and duly served on him and Devi Lal put in appearance through his counsel in the proceedings under Section 175. After the death of Devi Lal his legal representatives put in their appearance to contest the matter and appointed a counsel on their behalf. In that view of the matter the petitioner cannot claim any right to be issued any notices as action was required to be taken against Devil Lal for his alleged void sale, contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act and Devi Lal was duly served. There is no force in the above contention, the same is consequently rejected. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also does not merit consideration inasmuch as the petitioner cannot in any manner claim any better right than his Predecessor in interest. The sale in favour of Balchand in 1972 who sold the land to the petitioner was void being contrary to the provisions of Section 42 and hence Balchand acquired no right in the land on the basis of the void sale. Therefore even if Balchand being a member of Scheduled Caste sold the land to the petitioner who also a member of Scheduled Caste he could not confer any better right to the petitioner then he was in possession of. Therefore the said contention of the petitioner also does not merit any consideration and the same is rejected. The writ petition is consequently dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS