1. The predecessor in interest of the appellants, namely, Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were in possession of certain lands. By two documents, one dated 2-4-1964 and another dated 4-5-1964, they transferred these lands to the predecessor in interest of the respondents. The original landholders Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were the members of the Scheduled Caste. The transferee under the two documents dated 2-4-1964 and 4-5-1964 were not the members of either the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. Clause (b) of S.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (3 of 1955) (hereinafter referred to as " the") says that a sale, gift or bequest by a member of a Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be void.

2. Based on this provision, the Tahsildar initiated action against the transferees under these two documents and it appears that the Revenue Inspector was instructed to take action and the transferees were dispossessed and on 17-1-1976, Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram were put in possession. Thereafter, an application had been filed before the Sub Divisional Officer on 22-11-1976 evidently under sub-section 4(A) of S.175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The Sub Divisional Officer was of the view that the application filed on 22-11-1976 was beyond the period of limitation as it was made after a period of 12 years from the date of the execution ofthe two documents by Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram. The SDO noticed the fact that during the pendency of the proceedings, the Receiver had taken possession of the land from Nathu Ram and Ganpat Ram, so the Receiver was directed to handover the possession. This part of the order was challenged by the respondents before the Appellate Authority. The respondents thereafter filed a revision and an appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue confirmed the order passed by the SDO and held that the action taken under S.175 of the was beyond the period of limitation and the possession was directed to be given to the transferee. The appeal and revision were, thus, allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the writ petition before the High Court and the High Court dismissed the same. Hence these appeals by way of special leave.

3. We have heard the appellants counsel and the counsel for the respondents.

4. The contention urged by the appellants counsel is that by virtue of S.42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, any transaction made in contravention has been declared to be void and, therefore, the period of limitation is not applicable and that the authority should have held that the appellants are entitled to get possession. It may be noticed that for taking an action under S.175 of the, the procedure as prescribed under sub-section 4(A) of S.175 has to be adopted. It is also to be noticed that under S.214 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, period of limitation is prescribed for initiating action under S.175. Under S.214, it is stated that:

"214. (1) The suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be instituted and made within the time prescribed therein for them and every such suit instituted or application made after the expiry of the period of limitation so prescribed shall be dismissed:"

Under the Third Schedule, in clause 66, for an application for ejectment for illegal transfer or sub-letting, the period of twelve years is originally prescribed for filing such an application from the date of transfer or sub lease. The provision relating to the period of limitation was later on amended with effect from 5-10-1981 and the period was prescribed as 30 years. So far as the present transaction is concerned, the period of limitation applicable is twelve years. The transfers being one on 2-4-1964 and another on 4-5-1964, the proper application should have been filed within twelve years, but it was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer only on 22-11-1976. In that view of the matter, the proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, it was barred by limitation and the finding of the SDO is correct which has been rightly confirmed by the authorities right up to the High Court.

5. The contention of the appellants counsel that the assignments were by itself void, therefore, the period of limitation has no application, cannot be accepted for the reason that the specified procedure is prescribed under clause 4(A) of S.175 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. If only such proceeding is initiated, the authorities are entitled to declare that such transfer executed is void and property be resumed. Therefore, we do not find much force in the contention of the learned counsel. The appeals are without any merit and are dismissed.