1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4589/2007 Jasraj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 14th August, 2007 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. V.K.Bhadu, for the petitioner. .... The petitioner, a Jat Sikh by caste, was adopted as son by one Shri Manphul Ram Meghwal (a member of Scheduled Caste) on 28.4.1971 and through a registered sale deed dated 20.5.1971 he purchased an agricultural land from Shri Hukma Ram, a member of Scheduled Caste. Relevant to note here that Shri Manphul Ram was already having three sons and two daughters when the petitioner was adopted by him as son. The adoption so made was also subsequently terminated on 5.8.1993. The State Government preferred a suit to cancel the sale made on 20.5.1971 being in contravention of the provisions of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955”) and that suit was decreed by judgment dated 20.1.2006 with a finding that adoption of the petitioner by a member of Scheduled Caste was made only to frustrate the provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, as such the same was not bonafide. A decree was passed to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question. An appeal preferred by the 2 petitioner assailing validity of the judgment and decree given by the trial court came to be rejected by Revenue Appellate Authority, Sriganganagar on 4.10.2006 and that too was affirmed by Board of Revenue Rajasthan, Ajmer while rejecting the second appeal preferred by the petitioner on 31.1.2007. By this petition for writ challenge is given by the petitioner to the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 31.1.2007 and the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority as well as by the trial court. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below failed to appreciate that the land was purchased by him during a valid adoption by Shri Manphul Ram and, therefore, such action could not be treated in violation of provisions of Section 42 of the Act of 1955. To substantiate the contention, reliance is placed by counsel for the petitioner upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mst. Gulkandi and others v. Prahlad and another, AIR 1968 Rajasthan 51, holding therein that an adoption once validly made cannot be cancelled nor it is possible for the adopted son or for any of the parties concerned in adoption to renounce or destroy the rights of the adopted son, once the adoption has been validly made according to law. I do not find any substance in the contention so raised. In the instant matter by 3 examining all the facts available on record, the courts below reached at a specific finding that the adoption was not bonafide and that was made only with a view to frustrate the provision of Section 42 of the Act of 1955, those are social beneficial provisions. Pertinent to note here that the adoption was renounced by the parties subsequently. The conduct of the petitioner on basis of the material available on record was found by the courts below deplorable to the extent that the entire exercise of adoption was made only to purchase a land owned by a member of Scheduled Caste i.e. otherwise prohibited under Section 42 of the Act of 1955. The law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mst. Gulkandi (supra) is having no application in present case as the present one is a case where the adoption itself was not found bonafide. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any error in the orders impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.