B.J. Shethna, J.
1.On the basis of two judgments of this Court dated 4.4.97 delivered in (i) SB Civil Writ Petition No. 775/93 and (ii) judgment dated 11.4.97 delivered in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1160/94 learned Counsel Shri Vijay Bishnoi submitted that impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue is liable to be set aside because there was a delay of as many as 24 years in setting aside the decree by accepting the reference.
2. Relying upon the case of Anandi Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in 1995 (1) RLR 555, writ petition No. 775/93 was allowed as there was a delay of 13 years in making reference. What were the facts, have not been stated in that judgment dated 4.4.97. Similarly, writ petition No. 1160/94 was allowed by this Court relying upon Anandi Lal’s cause (supra). But the facts were not stated in the judgment dated 11.4.97.
3. In this case, according to Mr. Bishnoi, there is a delay of 24 years. Reference order dated 30.3.98 (Annex.4) in this petition is self explanatory. On facts of this case, the Board of Revenue found that the Assistant Collector illegally granted Khatedari rights in favour of petitioner Raju Ram, therefore, the decree dated 23.7.74 as well as mutation No. 1162 dated 5.1.83 were set aside and the land was again ordered to be recorded in the name of Uda s/o Galka -present respondent No. 3.From the reference order (Annex.4), it is clear that land belonging to Schedule Caste cannot be transferred in the name of non-schedule caste person. Present petitioner is a non-scheduled caste man and the respondent No. 3 Uda is a Scheduled Caste man in whose favour the land stood prior to filing of the suit by the father of the present petitioner. Ignoring the provisions of Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which the land cannot be transferred to the non- scheduled caste person from Scheduled Caste, the decree was passed in 1974 and the mutation was effected after nine years in 1983, had to be set aside as it was clearly against the provisions of law. Delay in such cases hardly matters. When the orders were void then the delay should not come in the way.
4. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid judgments of this Court have no application on the facts of this case. Hence, this petition is rejected.