Latest
Friday, October 30, 2026
EN हिं Sign In Contribute
Rajasthan High Court
High Courts

Scheduled Caste Khatedars' Land Agreements With Housing Society Void Under Section 42(b); Suit Not Time-Barred: Rajasthan High Court

Published: · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a trial court decree and declared void two 1991 documents under which Scheduled Caste khatedars were said to have agreed to sell their agricultural land to a Jaipur housing co-operative society (para 32). Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act bars a transfer to a juristic person, and the unregistered, inadequately stamped documents conveyed nothing (paras 16-19). The suit against these void documents was within limitation (paras 29-31).

Scheduled Caste Khatedars' Land Agreements With Housing Society Void Under Section 42(b); Suit Not Time-Barred: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Petition Allowed
Sundarya (since deceased, through LRs) & Ors. v. Sanyukat Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur & Ors.
2026:RJ-JP:43701
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 502/2025
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Date of Decision
28 October 2026
Bench
Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Relevant Acts & Sections
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 — Section 42(b); Limitation Act, 1963 — Articles 59, 65; Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Sections 54, 55; Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 — Section 90-B; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 96
Final Outcome

The first appeal was allowed and the decree of 9 December 2024 set aside. The 1991 documents were declared void against the plaintiffs; the respondents may not transfer the land on their basis or issue pattas contrary to the rules. Parties bear their own costs (para 32).

Source Rajasthan High Court, hcraj.nic.in — judgment dated 28.10.2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

  1. A housing co-operative society is a juristic person without caste; an agreement to transfer Scheduled Caste land to it is void under Section 42(b) (paras 15-16, 19).
  2. An unregistered, inadequately stamped agreement to sell confers no title to the land (paras 17-19).
  3. A void document need not be cancelled, so the three-year limit of Article 59 does not apply (para 27).
  4. Even accepting knowledge of the Section 90-B surrender in 2008, the 2014 suit was within the twelve years of Article 65 (paras 28-31).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The plaintiffs, of the Balai caste, a Scheduled Caste, sued in April 2014 to have an agreement and an undertaking-cum-agreement to sell dated 21 March 1991, in favour of respondent 1, a housing co-operative society, declared void, and for injunctions (paras 2, 14, 24). They denied executing them or receiving any price (para 2). On their basis the society had surrendered the land to the Jaipur Development Authority under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act; in 2014 the Divisional Commissioner annulled those proceedings and the Board of Revenue upheld that decision (para 21). Although the defendants led no evidence, the trial court dismissed the suit on 9 December 2024, treating it as time-barred (paras 1, 5-6, 31).

Court's Findings

It was admitted that the Balai caste is a Scheduled Caste (para 14). Following State of Rajasthan v. Aanjaney Organic Herbal, the Court held that Section 42(b) bars the transfer of a Scheduled Caste khatedar's land to a juristic person, which has no caste, so any transfer to the society was void from the start even if the documents were executed (paras 14-16, 19). The typed agreement left the rate per bigha blank, and two versions of the second document gave Rs 2,70,000 and Rs 2,50,000 a bigha, raising doubt whether either was executed (para 17). Neither was registered or adequately stamped, and under Suraj Lamp an unregistered agreement confers no title (paras 17-19). The revenue decisions restored the plaintiffs' entries, the society and the authority acquired no rights, and the plaintiffs' evidence of possession was unrebutted (paras 20-23). A void document need not be set aside, so Article 59 did not apply (Prem Singh v. Birbal; Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi) (para 27). A witness's claim to have learnt of the surrender in 2008 was uncorroborated, and even from 2008 the suit was within Article 65's twelve years (paras 28-31).

Legal Principle

Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act bars the transfer of a Scheduled Caste khatedar's land to a juristic person, which has no caste; an agreement to sell it to a housing society is void from the start. Article 59 of the Limitation Act does not govern a suit against such a void document (paras 16, 19, 27, 31).

NyayVidhan's view · Practice note

Why It Matters

For societies and developers relying on old agreements over Scheduled Caste khatedari land, this judgment is a warning: Section 42(b) bars a transfer to a juristic person, so such an agreement is void from the start, and the revenue authorities had annulled the Section 90-B surrender built on it (paras 16, 19, 21). Landowners suing over a void document are not held to the three-year limit of Article 59; the Court applied the twelve years of Article 65 (paras 27, 30-31). The Court also held that an unregistered agreement gives no title (paras 17-19), as the Supreme Court did in Rano Singh v. Gurbax Singh, where an agreement to sell created no interest in the property.

Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.

Precedents Relied Upon

  1. State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 10 SCC 283
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 9, 15, 16, 19

    Cited by the appellants (para 9). The Court extracted paras 7, 13 and 15 of that judgment: Section 42 protects Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from exploitation, a sale by a Scheduled Caste member to a juristic person, which has no caste, is hit by Section 42, and such sale deeds are void (para 15). On that basis it held that Scheduled Caste land could not be transferred to respondent 1, a juristic person, so the 1991 documents were void from the start (paras 16, 19).

  2. Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. (2) v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 17, 18, 19

    Extract (paras 16 and 19 of that judgment): an agreement to sell does not of itself create any interest in immovable property, which can be sold only by a registered instrument (para 17). Applying it, the Court held that an unregistered agreement does not complete a sale under Sections 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act or create title, and that the unregistered, inadequately stamped 1991 documents were void (paras 18-19).

  3. Smt. Santosh Singh v. Shri Manoharlal Sheetalani Madhya Pradesh High Court, Misc. Petition No. 7195/2025, order dated 09.01.2026
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 18, 19

    Para 7 of that order quoted (applying Vijay v. Union of India and Suraj Lamp on unstamped and unregistered agreements) as expressing the same view (para 18); relied on with Suraj Lamp in holding the 1991 documents void (para 19).

View all precedents (8)
  1. Prem Singh v. Birbal (2006) 5 SCC 353
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27, 29, 30, 31

    Extract (paras 16, 18, 20 and 25 of that judgment): a void document need not be set aside, and Article 59 of the Limitation Act applies to instruments that are prima facie valid, not to those presumptively invalid (para 27). Applied in holding that the suit was within limitation under Article 65 (paras 29-31).

  2. Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1961
    Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 27, 29, 30, 31

    Extract (paras 29, 31 and 38 of that judgment), restating Prem Singh: Article 59 does not govern a void transaction, and a sale deed the plaintiff never executed, or one without consideration, is void and need not be cancelled (para 27). Applied with Prem Singh on limitation (paras 29-31).

  3. Rajasthan Housing Board v. New Pink City Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. & Anr. 2015 (7) SCC 601
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9

    Cited by the appellants in support of their submissions (para 9). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 13-31).

  4. R. Nagaraj (Dead) Through LRs & Anr. v. Rajmani & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 416
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9

    Cited by the appellants in support of their submissions (para 9). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 13-31).

  5. Banwari Lal v. Anand & Ors. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 138/2009, order dated 03.05.2012
    Referred To Discussed at ¶ 9

    Cited by the appellants in support of their submissions (para 9). The Court's reasoning does not discuss it (paras 13-31).

Statutory Provisions: CPC Limitation Act Section 96 (CPC)
Topics: Agreement to Sell and Title Alienation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Land Limitation for Suits on Void Documents
NyayVidhan
Court Judgments · 3 min read
Decided: October 28, 2026 Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
PDF
Join our WhatsApp Group
✕

Try: POCSO, IBC, Electoral Bond, Article 370, NDPS Act, Bail Conditions, SC Contempt