As per the case facts, a land originally allotted to a Scheduled Caste landless person was allegedly fraudulently transferred through a sale deed. The original allottee filed a suit for ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2021
BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS .. Appellant(s)
Versus
JASSA RAM & ORS. ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
[1.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2011 passed by
the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal No.1398/1999 by which the
Division Bench of High Court has allowed the said Appeal
2
preferred by the respondent herein – original plaintiff, the
appellant herein original defendant – purchaser of the suit
land in question has preferred the present Appeal.
[2.0] The facts leading to the present Appeal in nutshell
are as under:
[2.1] The dispute is with respect to the land situated at
village Dharamsinghwala, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan. The said land was allotted to one
Chunilal as Scheduled Caste landless person and father of the
respondent herein – original plaintiff. As per the case of the
respondent – original plaintiff, in the year 1972, the said
Chunilal borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/ from one Puran Singh
and under the guise of documentation, the said Puran Singh
belonging to Jat High Caste fraudulently made Chunilal sign
the sale deed in favour of the appellant herein – original
defendant – Bhadar Ram, who was a resident of Punjab.
3
[2.2] The said Chunilal filed a suit for ejectment against
Puran Singh and Bhadar Ram on the ground that he was the
allottee of the land and the sale deed dated 21.06.1972 is void
and ineffective and the same is in violation of Section 42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan
Colonization Act, 1954. The said suit came to be decreed by
the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
13.10.1980 holding that the land was in possession of Puran
Singh who was not a Scheduled Caste person and that the
sale deed is in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan
Colonization Act, 1954 as well as in breach of Section 42 of
the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and therefore, the said
Puran Singh is liable to be evicted. As per the case of the
respondent original plaintiff, the possession of the land was
handed over to him in pursuance of the decree passed by the
learned trial Court. The possession was found to be with
Puran Singh and not with Bhadar Ram. Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and order /decree passed by
the learned trial Court, the appellant – original defendant filed
4
Appeal before the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue
Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said Appeal. The appellant –
original defendant filed the Appeal before the Board of
Revenue, which came to be allowed vide order dated
25.04.1989 by giving benefit of compounding to the appellant
– original defendant on payment of compounding fees under
Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.
[2.3] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order
passed by the Board of Revenue, the respondent – original
plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge of
the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court
dismissed the said Writ Petition vide judgment and order
dated 15.09.1999. The respondent – original plaintiff
thereafter preferred Appeal before the Division Bench and by
the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the
High Court has allowed the said Appeal and has set aside the
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge
holding that the appellant herein – original defendant, being
5
the resident and Scheduled Caste belonging to the State of
Punjab, he could not have taken the benefit of his being
Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan. While holding so,
the Division Bench of High Court relied upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Union of India
and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244.
[2.4] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court, the appellant original defendant –
purchaser of the land in question has preferred the present
Appeal.
[3.0] Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant – original defendant has vehemently submitted that
as such all throughout the case set up by the respondent –
original plaintiff was all alone that the transaction was void
6
for absence of prior permission as required under Section 13
of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 before executing the
sale between the members of Scheduled Caste and that the
appellant – original defendant has been allegedly used by
Puran Singh to overcome the bar imposed by Section 42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is submitted that thus the
respondent – original plaintiff admitted that the appellant –
original defendant is the Member of Scheduled Caste and
known in the community as such. It is submitted that since
there was never a proper /formal issue framed qua the
ordinary status of the appellant – original defendant for
determination of caste status in relation of State of Rajasthan,
adequate evidence could not be presented, though the
appellant’s father – forefathers are residents of Rajasthan.
[3.1] It is submitted that after amendment of 1983,
Section 13A has been inserted in Rajasthan Colonization Act,
1954, which permits compounding and regularization of the
transaction executed without the permission as required
7
under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 on
deposit of compounding fees, which was correctly done by the
Board of Revenue in the present case after the amendment. It
is submitted that, as submitted hereinabove, the main thrust
of the case of the respondent – original plaintiff until then was
that the transaction was not in compliance of Section 13 of the
Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. It is submitted that only
after the decision of the Board of Revenue, the respondent –
original plaintiff shifted the focus to Section 42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
[3.2] It is submitted that merely because the appellant –
original defendant was residing or has house at Punjab does
not make him an ordinarily resident of Punjab. Reliance is
placed on Section 20(1) of the Representation of People Act,
1950. It is submitted that therefore a further inquiry into that
aspect is /was required before residential status is finally
determined.
8
[3.3] Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant – original defendant has also relied upon the report
of the Action Committee on the issue of caste certificate to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes referring to the case of
Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and Another (supra) .
[3.4] Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision in
the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and Another (supra) is concerned, it is
submitted that the said judgment only discusses the status of
a person in relation to a State, who has migrated to and has
not anywhere discussed a situation where a person having
migrated to another State was returning to his State of origin
and at that time the issue of Scheduled Caste status being
raised and agitated like the present case. He submitted that
even the said decision also only discuses Scheduled Caste
9
status with respect to employment /education or the like and
purchase or sale of property that has not been looked into.
[3.5] It is submitted that the purchase of the property is
out of one’s own fund i.e., for lawful consideration from
another and does not necessarily require State reservation or
other limitation and is essentially a free act determined in
open market, regulated only to the extent of its mode of
execution by law and has to be looked as such. It is
submitted that the appellant – original defendant therefore
should not be denied benefits of land purchased from his own
hardearned money.
[3.6] It is submitted that even the respondent – original
plaintiff cannot be permitted to question 1972 sale in 1977
after 5 years for the first time. It is submitted that this fact
itself goes to show mala fides of the respondent – original
plaintiff and abuse of process of law thereafter to deny
appellant – original defendant his rightful land. It is
submitted that the consideration received has been retained
10
all throughout by the respondent – original plaintiff and the
appellant – original defendant has been depositing
compounding fees in terms of Section 13A of the Rajasthan
Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, he should not be denied
the benefits of his land.
Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow
the present Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench.
[4.0] The present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms.
Christi Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent – original plaintiff.
[4.1] It is submitted that the issue whether a person, who
is a member of Scheduled Caste in Punjab, where he is
residing, can claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste in
Rajasthan in relation to Section 42 of the Rajasthan
Colonization Act, 1954 is squarely covered by the decision of
this Hon’ble Court dated 01.11.2018 in Ranjana Kumari Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. in Civil Appeal
11
No.8425/2013. It is submitted that after considering two
constitution Bench judgments, in the case of Marri Chandra
Shekar Rao Vs. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and
Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue
of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra), it
is held that merely because in the migrant State, the same
caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste, a migrant cannot be
recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. It is
submitted that therefore applying the law laid down by this
Court and the aforesaid decisions, the Division Bench of the
High Court has rightly allowed the Appeal and has rightly held
that the appellant – original defendant, being the resident of
State of Punjab and being a member of Scheduled Caste in
State of Punjab, cannot claim benefit of Scheduled Caste in
Rajasthan, and therefore, the transaction between the
respondent plaintiff and the appellant original defendant is
hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
12
[4.2] It is further submitted that even the aforesaid issue
is covered by another decision of this Court in the case of Bir
Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312 (paragraph
34). It is submitted that therefore no interference of this Court
is called for in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India.
[4.3] It is submitted that in the present case the suit was
filed by the respondent original plaintiff for ejectment and for
declaring the sale deed dated 21.06.1972 as void being in
violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and
Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. It is
submitted that in the present case the land was purchased by
Puran Singh a nonScheduled Caste in the name of Bhadar
Ram when the respondent – original plaintiff borrowed some
money from him for his medical treatment. It is submitted
that therefore the same can be said to be in breach of Section
13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 as well as Section
42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It is further
13
submitted that even otherwise the appellant – original
defendant is a resident of Punjab and not of Rajasthan. It is
submitted that in the bainama, his address is shown as
Village Burajwala, Tehsil, Fajilka, District Firozpur, Punjab
and he is resident of Punjab. It is submitted that in the
mutation record also, his address is shown as that of Punjab.
In the cross examination, he has submitted that he was
resident of Punjab. It was not a case set up by him that he
was in fact a resident of Rajasthan and had migrated to
Punjab.
[4.4] It is submitted that the appellant – original
defendant claims to be a resident of Rajasthan only on the
ground that his grandfather had land in Rajasthan. It is
submitted that holding land in Rajasthan does not ipso facto
lead to the conclusion that the person belongs to that State.
There is no evidence of birth of appellant – original defendant
in Rajasthan. It is submitted that therefore the transaction is
hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
14
[4.5] It is submitted that even otherwise the appellant –
Bhadar Ram was in fact the benami holder for Puran Singh
who was not a member of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan. The
land was found to be in possession of Puran Singh. The
learned trial Court specifically observed that the possession is
of Puran Singh. The learned trial Court also observed that the
possession is found to be with Puran Singh when the
authorities went to deliver the possession to the respondent –
original plaintiff in pursuance to the order passed by the
learned trial Court. It is submitted that therefore the sale
deed is in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization
Act, 1954.
[4.6] It is submitted that even otherwise the Board of
Revenue could not have given the benefit of compounding
under Section 13 A to the appellant – original defendant. It is
submitted that the benefit of compounding can only be given if
the transferee was in possession. In the present case, the
transferee – appellant was not in possession, and therefore,
15
the benefit of compounding could not have been given to the
appellant – original defendant. The permission of
compounding can only be given by the State Government and
not the Board of Revenue. It is submitted that even otherwise
the provisions under Section 13A could have been exercised
up to 13.06.1987 whereas Board has exercised it on
25.04.1989, which is beyond the time limit.
Making the above submissions and relying upon the
above decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present Appeal.
[5.0] Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. The short question, which is
posed for the consideration of this Court is, Whether the land
transaction in favour of the appellant original defendant was
illegal and in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,
1954 being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste of State of
Punjab?
16
[6.0] It is not in dispute that the land in question is
situated within the State of Rajasthan. The land in question
was allotted to one Chunilal – father of the respondent –
original plaintiff, being a Scheduled Caste landless person.
According to the respondent – original plaintiff, the said
Chunilal borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/ from one Puran Singh
(Jat High Caste) and under the guise of documentation, the
said Puran Singh fraudulently made Chunilal to sign a sale
deed in favour of the appellant herein – Bhadar Ram, a
resident of Punjab. Thus, according to the respondent –
original plaintiff, in effect the sale was in favour of the said
Puran Singh. However, the said Puran Singh got the sale deed
executed in favour of the appellant herein – Bhadar Ram,
being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste (Scheduled Caste
in Punjab). According to the respondent – original plaintiff, all
throughout, the land was in possession of the said Puran
Singh, who was not a Scheduled Caste person and even after
the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court
when the possession was handed over to the respondent –
17
original plaintiff, the possession was found to be with Puran
Singh and not with the appellant original defendant, and
therefore, it was the case on behalf of the respondent – original
plaintiff that the sale transaction in favor of Bhadar Ram was
in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,
1954. It was also the case on behalf of the respondent –
original plaintiff that the sale transaction was also in violation
of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in as much
as the appellant – Bhadar Ram was belonging to Scheduled
Caste in the State of Punjab and he was the permanent
resident of State of Punjab. However, it was the case on behalf
of the appellant original defendant that he being a person
belonging to Scheduled Caste, the sale deed in his favour
cannot be said to be in breach of Section 42 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955. It was also the case on behalf of the
appellant original defendant that he has migrated to
Rajasthan and as his grandfather and father had purchased
the agricultural lands in the State of Rajasthan, and therefore,
18
he can be said to be the permanent resident of State of
Rajasthan.
[6.1] Whether the appellant herein – original defendant –
purchaser of the land in question, situated in the State of
Rajasthan, can be said to be an ordinarily resident of State of
Rajasthan, it is to be noted that in bainama, his address is
shown as Village Burajwala, Tehsil Fajilka, District Firozpur,
Punjab. In the mutation record also, his address is shown as
that of Punjab. In the cross examination, he has admitted
that he was a resident of Punjab. However, according to the
appellant – original plaintiff, as his grandfather and father had
purchased the lands in the State of Rajasthan, he can be said
to be an ordinarily resident of State of Rajasthan. The
aforesaid cannot be accepted. Merely because his grandfather
and father had purchased the agricultural lands in the State
of Rajasthan, the appellant cannot be said to be an ordinarily
resident of Rajasthan.
19
‘Ordinarily Resident’ has been defined under the
Representation of the People Act, 1950 . As per Section
20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, ‘ordinarily
resident’ means a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily
resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or
is in possession of, a dwelling house therein. Considering the
documentary evidences referred to hereinabove, it cannot be
said that the appellant – original defendant is an ordinarily
/permanent resident of State of Rajasthan.
[7] Now whether the sale transaction in favour of the
appellant original defendant can be said to be in violation of
Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, it
is to be noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act, 1955, there is a restriction on sale, gift or bequest by a
member of Scheduled Caste in favour of a person, who is not a
member of Scheduled Caste. Looking to the object and
purpose of such a provision, it can be said that the said
provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste
20
belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case
the State of Rajasthan. Being a Scheduled Caste in the State
of Punjab whether the sale transaction in favour of the
appellant original defendant could have been saved from the
bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is
now not res integra. In the case of Marri Chandra Shekar
Rao (supra) in paragraph 10 it is observed and held as under:
“10. It has, however, to be borne in mind that a
man does not cease to belong to his caste by
migration to a better or more socially free and
liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long time is
spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions
and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially
disadvantageous community do not continue and
the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or
girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are
problems of social adjustment i.e how far protection
has to be given to a certain segment of socially
disadvantaged community and for how long to
become equal with others is a matter of delicate
social adjustment. These must be so balanced in
the mosaic of the country’s integrity that no section
or community should cause detriment or
discontentment to other community or part of
community or section. Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes belonging to a particular area of
the country must be given protection so long as and
to the extent they are entitled in order to become
equal with others. But equally those who go to
other areas should also ensure that they make way
21
for the disadvantaged and disabled of that part of
the community who suffer from disabilities in those
areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require
necessary protection as balanced between other
communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra, in the
instant case, do require protection in the State of
Maharashtra, which will have to be in balance to
other communities. This must be the basic
approach to the problem. If one bears this basic
approach in mind, then the determination of the
controversy in the instant case does not become
difficult.”
While holding so, it is observed in the aforesaid decision
that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some
States had to suffer the social disadvantages and did not have
the facilities for development and growth, and therefore, in
order to make them equal in those areas where they have so
suffered and are in the state of underdevelopment, to have
reservations or protection in their favour so that they can
compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or
developed sections of the community, a particular caste who
has suffered more in a particular State might be given
reservations or protection in their favour. It is also observed
22
that social condition of a State varies from State to State and it
will not be proper to generalize any Caste or any Tribe as a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the whole country.
[7.1] In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) after
considering the decision of this Court in the case of Marri
Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) the question arose, Whether a
person belonging to caste or tribe specified for the purpose of
Constitution to be Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in
relation to State A migrates to State B, where a caste or tribe
with the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of
Constitution to be a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in
relation to that State B, will that person be entitled to claim
the privileges and benefits admissible to persons belonging to
Scheduled Caste and /or Scheduled Tribe in State B? Holding
that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe
in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an
23
ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to
any other State on his migration to that State for the purpose
of employment, education etc. In paragraph Nos.3 and 16 it is
observed and held as under:
“3.On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles
341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of the
President is limited to specifying the castes or tribes
which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be
deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
in relation to a State or a Union Territory, as the
case may be. Once a notification is issued under
clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution, Parliament can by law include in or
exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes, specified in the notification, any
caste or tribe but save for that limited purpose the
notification issued under clause (1), shall not be
varied by any subsequent notification. What is
important to notice is that the castes or tribes have
to be specified in relation to a given State or Union
Territory. That means a given caste or tribe can be
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in relation
to the State or Union Territory for which it is
specified. These are the relevant provisions with
which we shall be concerned while dealing with the
grievance made in this petition.”
“16. We may add that considerations for
specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for
inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule
Tribes or backward classes in a given State would
depend on the nature and extent of disadvantages
and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or
24
class in that State which may be totally non est in
another State to which persons belonging thereto
may migrate. Coincidentally it may be that a caste
or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified
in two States but the considerations on the basis of
which they have been specified may be totally
different. So also the degree of disadvantages of
various elements which constitute the input for
specification may also be totally different. Therefore,
merely because a given caste is specified in State A
as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean
that if there be another caste bearing the same
nomenclature in another State the person belonging
to the former would be entitled to the rights,
privileges and benefits admissible to a member of
the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the
purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect
which has to be kept in mind and which was very
much in the minds of the Constitutionmakers as is
evident from the choice of language of Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer
to a question by Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar
answered as under:
"He asked me another question and it
was this. Supposing a member of a
Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area
migrates to another part of the territory of
India, which is outside both the
scheduled area and the tribal area, will
he be able to claim from the local
Government, within whose jurisdiction he
may be residing the same privileges
which he would be entitled to when he is
residing within the scheduled area or
within the tribal area? It is a difficult
question for me to answer. If that matter
is agitated in quarters where a decision
25
on a matter like this would lie, we would
certainly be able to give some answer to
the question in the form of some clause
in this Constitution. But so far as the
present Constitution stands, a member of
a Scheduled Tribe going outside the
scheduled area or tribal area would
certainly not be entitled to carry with him
the privileges that he is entitled to when
he is residing in a scheduled area or a
tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be
practicably impossible to enforce the
provisions that apply to tribal areas or
scheduled areas, in areas other than
those which are covered by them.......”
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench
ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to
admission to the medical college on the basis that
he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his
origin.”
[8]The decision of this Court in the case of Action
Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra
and Another (supra) shall be applicable with full force to the
facts of the present case also. The submission on behalf of the
appellant original defendant that the said decision shall not
be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case
the Court was considering the issue with respect to
26
employment, education and in the present case dispute is with
respect to sale /sale of property has no substance and cannot
be accepted. The reasoning given by this Court in the case of
Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and Another (supra) are on interpretation and
on a plain reading of Clause I of Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution of India, which are referred to hereinabove. We
see no reason to restrict the applicability of the decision of this
Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in
the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) only with
respect to employment, education or the like and not to make
applicable the same with respect to purchase and sale of the
property in case of sale and purchase of the land belonging to
a Scheduled Caste person in the State of Rajasthan and when
the said land was allotted to the original land owner – Chunilal
as Scheduled Caste landless person.
27
[9] At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the
subsequent decision in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra),
a Three Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to
consider the same issue. Before this Court the appellant
belonged to Valmiki Caste (Scheduled Caste of the State of
Punjab), who married a person belonging to Valmiki Caste of
Uttarakhand migrated to that State. It was found that in the
State of Uttarakhand also under the Presidential order
‘Valmiki’ was also recognized as notified Scheduled Caste.
Even the State of Uttarakhand also issued a certificate to the
appellant. However, the State of Uttarakhand denied the
benefit, which may be available to the Scheduled Caste
belonging to State of Uttarakhand. Thereafter the appellant
approached the High Court. The High Court rejected the
claim. The decision of the High Court was carried before this
Court. While dismissing the Appeal, it is observed in
paragraph 4 as under:
“4.Two Constitution Bench judgments of this
Court in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao Vs. Dean,
Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. and Action
28
Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Union of India
& Anr. have taken the view that merely because in
the migrant State the same caste is recognized as
Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognized
as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. The
issuance of a caste certificate by the State of
Uttarakhand, as in the present case, cannot dilute
the rigours of the Constitution Bench Judgments in
Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) and Action
Committee (supra).”
[10] In view of the above, the appellant – original
defendant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of
Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the
State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste
in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of the
land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of
Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled
Caste landless person, and therefore, as rightly held by the
Division Bench of the High Court, the sale transaction in
favour of the appellant – original defendant was in clear
breach and / or in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955.
29
[11] Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the sale transaction in favour of the appellant
original defendant can be said to be in breach of Section 13 of
the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. It is required to be
noted that the Board of Revenue granted the benefit of
provisions of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,
1954 in favour of the appellant original defendant and the
Board permitted the appellant original defendant to pay
compounding fees and regularized the transaction. However,
it is required to be noted that when the Board of Revenue
granted the benefit of compounding under Section 13A(2), an
order of ejection of the appellant original defendant was
already passed against him and Puran Singh, and the
possession was already handed over to the respondent –
original plaintiff from Puran Singh, who was found to be in
actual physical possession of the land on 30.12.1980. Section
13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 would be
applicable only in a case where an order of ejectment has been
30
passed, but a person against whom an order of ejectment has
been passed has not actually been ejected from the land
transferred. In that view of the matter, no order of
compounding in favour of the appellant original defendant
and /or even Puran Singh could have been passed by the
Board of Revenue in exercise of power under Section 13(A)(2)
of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, also
the order passed by the Board of Revenue confirmed by the
learned Single Judge permitting compounding was contrary to
Section 13A(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and
therefore, also the land transaction in question is hit by
Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.
[12] In view of the above and for the reasons stated
hereinabove, the land transaction in favour of the appellant
original defendant was in breach of Section 13 of the
Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and Section 42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which is rightly held to be void
by the Division Bench of the High Court. We are in complete
31
agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench. Under
the circumstances, the present Appeal fails and the same
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………… J.
(M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
January 5, 2022.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....