BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS. versus JASSA RAM & ORS.

[2022] 2 S.C.R.

BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRs.

JASSA RAM & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2021)

BJANUARY 05, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]

Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – s.42 – Land transaction –Legality –Land was allotted to ‘C’, the father of respondent, as aCScheduled Caste landless person – borrowed sum from one ‘P’who allegedly, fraudulently, made ‘C’ to sign sale deed in favor ofappellant , resident of Punjab – ‘C’ filed suit for ejectment against‘P’ and appellant – Trial court held that the land was in possessionof ‘P’ who was not Scheduled Caste person and the sale deed wasin violation of s.13 of Rajasthan Colonization Act, as well as inDbreach of s.42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore, ‘P’ wasliable to be evicted – Aggrieved by the order/ decree of trial court,appellant filed appeal before Revenue Appellate Tribunal whichwas dismissed – Further appeal of appellant before Board of Revenuewas allowed, which gave benefit of compounding to appellant onpayment of compounding fees u/s.13 of the Rajasthan ColonizationEAct – Respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed by SingleJudge of High Court – On appeal, Division Bench set aside thejudgment of Single Judge holding that appellant, being residentand Scheduled caste belonging to Punjab, could not take benefitof his being Scheduled caste – Held: Merely because the appellant’sFgrandfather and father had purchased the agricultural lands inthe State of Rajasthan, the appellant cannot be said to be anordinarily resident of Rajasthan – Appellant being ScheduledCaste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarily andpermanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefitof Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for purpose ofGpurchase of the land belonging to Scheduled Caste person ofState of Rajasthan, which was given to original allottee as ScheduledCaste landless person and therefore sale transaction in favour ofappellant was in clear breach and/or in violation of s.42 of theRajasthan Tenancy Act – Even otherwise, in the facts andHcircumstances of the case, the sale transaction in favour of appellant

can be said to be in breach of s.13 of the Rajasthan ColonizationAct – Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – s.13.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. Merely because the appellant’s grandfather andfather had purchased the agricultural lands in the State ofRajasthan, the appellant cannot be said to be an ordinarily residentof Rajasthan. As per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act,1955, there is restriction on sale, gift or bequest by memberof Scheduled Caste in favour of person, who is not member ofScheduled Caste. Looking to the object and purpose of such aprovision, it can be said that the said provision is to protect amember of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State hebelongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan.[Paras 6.1 and 7][404-E, G-H; 405-A]2.1. In the case of Action Committee on Issue of CasteCertificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Stateof Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that person belongingto Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his originalState of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannotbe deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migrationto that State for the purpose of employment, education etc. Thedecision of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate toScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtraand Another is applicable with full force to the facts of the presentcase also. The submission on behalf of the appellant that the saiddecision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand asin that case the Court was considering the issue with respect toemployment, education and in the present case dispute is withrespect to sale /sale of property has no substance. There is noreason to restrict the applicability of the said decision only withrespect to employment, education or the like and not to makeapplicable the same with respect to purchase and sale of theproperty in case of sale and purchase of the land belonging to aScheduled Caste person in the State of Rajasthan and when thesaid land was allotted to the original land owner as ScheduledCaste landless person. [Paras 7.1 and 8][406-C-F; 408-C-G]

A2.2. The appellant being Scheduled Caste belonging toState of Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent residentof the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefit of ScheduledCaste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchase of theland belonging to Scheduled Caste person of State of Rajasthan,which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landlessBperson and therefore the sale transaction in favour of the appellantwas in clear breach and / or in violation of s.42 of the RajasthanTenancy Act, 1955. [Para 10][409-E-G]

2.3. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the sale transaction in favour of the appellant can be said toCbe in breach of s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. Whenthe Board of Revenue granted the benefit of compounding underSection13A(2), an order of ejection of appellant was already passedagainst him and ‘P’, and the possession was already handed overto respondent from ‘P’, who was found to be in actual physicalDpossession of the land on 30.12.1980. s.13(A)(2) of the RajasthanColonization Act, 1954 would be applicable only in case wherean order of ejectment has been passed, but person against whoman order of ejectment has been passed has not actually beenejected from the land transferred. In that view of the matter, noorder of compounding in favour of the appellant and /or even ‘P’’Ecould have been passed by the Board of Revenue in exercise ofpower under s.13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.[Para 11][409-G-H; 410-A-D]

Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate toScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State ofFMaharashtra and Another v. Union of India andAnother, (1994) 5 SCC 244 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 714– held applicable.

Marri Chandra Shekar Rao v. Dean, Geth G.S. MedicalCollege and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130 : [1990] 2 SCRG843 – followed.

Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [2019]15 SCC 664 – relied on.

Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312 :[2018] 10 SCR 513 – referred to.

3. The land transaction in favour of the appellant was inbreach of s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and s.42of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which was rightly held to bevoid by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 12][410-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5933of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.04.2011 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Special AppealNo.1398 of 1999.

Ms. Suruchi Mittal, Abhishek Gautam, Advs. for the Appellants.

Ms. Christi Jain, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 07.04.2011 passed by the Division Bench of High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal No.1398/1999 by which the Division Bench of High Court has allowed the saidAppeal preferred by the respondent herein – original plaintiff, the appellantherein - original defendant – purchaser of the suit land in question haspreferred the present Appeal.

2 The facts leading to the present Appeal in nutshell are as under:

2.1 The dispute is with respect to the land situated at villageDharamsinghwala, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri Ganganagar,Rajasthan. The said land was allotted to one Chunilal as Scheduled Castelandless person and father of the respondent herein – original plaintiff.As per the case of the respondent – original plaintiff, in the year 1972,

Athe said Chunilal borrowed sum of Rs.5000/- from one Puran Singhand under the guise of documentation, the said Puran Singh belonging toJat - High Caste fraudulently made Chunilal sign the sale deed in favourof the appellant herein – original defendant – Bhadar Ram, who was aresident of Punjab.

B2.2 The said Chunilal filed suit for ejectment against Puran Singhand Bhadar Ram on the ground that he was the allottee of the land andthe sale deed dated 21.06.1972 is void and ineffective and the same is inviolation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. The said suit came to bedecreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree datedC13.10.1980 holding that the land was in possession of Puran Singh whowas not Scheduled Caste person and that the sale deed is in violationof Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 as well as in breachof Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and therefore, thesaid Puran Singh is liable to be evicted. As per the case of the respondentD- original plaintiff, the possession of the land was handed over to him inpursuance of the decree passed by the learned trial Court. The possessionwas found to be with Puran Singh and not with Bhadar Ram. Feelingaggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order /decree passedby the learned trial Court, the appellant – original defendant filed AppealEbefore the Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue Appellate Tribunaldismissed the said Appeal. The appellant – original defendant filed theAppeal before the Board of Revenue, which came to be allowed videorder dated 25.04.1989 by giving benefit of compounding to the appellant– original defendant on payment of compounding fees under Section 13of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.F

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed bythe Board of Revenue, the respondent – original plaintiff filed WritPetition before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learnedSingle Judge of the High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition videjudgment and order dated 15.09.1999. The respondent – original plaintiffGthereafter preferred Appeal before the Division Bench and by theimpugned judgment and order the Division Bench of the High Court hasallowed the said Appeal and has set aside the judgment and order passedby the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant herein – originaldefendant, being the resident and Scheduled Caste belonging to the StateHof Punjab, he could not have taken the benefit of his being ScheduledCaste in the State of Rajasthan. While holding so, the Division Bench ofHigh Court relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of ActionCommittee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Unionof India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant- original defendant – purchaser of the land in question has preferred thepresent Appeal.

3.0 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – originaldefendant has vehemently submitted that as such all throughout the caseset up by the respondent – original plaintiff was all alone that thetransaction was void for absence of prior permission as required underSection 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 before executing thesale between the members of Scheduled Caste and that the appellant –original defendant has been allegedly used by Puran Singh to overcomethe bar imposed by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It issubmitted that thus the respondent – original plaintiff admitted that theappellant – original defendant is the Member of Scheduled Caste andknown in the community as such. It is submitted that since there wasnever proper /formal issue framed qua the ordinary status of theappellant – original defendant for determination of caste status in relationof State of Rajasthan, adequate evidence could not be presented, thoughthe appellant’s father – forefathers are residents of Rajasthan.

3.1 It is submitted that after amendment of 1983, Section 13A hasbeen inserted in Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, which permitscompounding and regularization of the transaction executed without thepermission as required under Section 13 of the Rajasthan ColonizationAct, 1954 on deposit of compounding fees, which was correctly done bythe Board of Revenue in the present case after the amendment. It issubmitted that, as submitted hereinabove, the main thrust of the case ofthe respondent – original plaintiff until then was that the transaction wasnot in compliance of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.It is submitted that only after the decision of the Board of Revenue, therespondent – original plaintiff shifted the focus to Section 42 of theRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

A3.2 It is submitted that merely because the appellant – originaldefendant was residing or has house at Punjab does not make him anordinarily resident of Punjab. Reliance is placed on Section 20(1) of theRepresentation of People Act, 1950. It is submitted that therefore afurther inquiry into that aspect is /was required before residential statusis finally determined.B

3.3 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – originaldefendant has also relied upon the report of the Action Committee onthe issue of caste certificate to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribesreferring to the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificateto Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State ofCMaharashtra and Another (supra).

3.4 Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision in thecase of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra andAnother (supra) is concerned, it is submitted that the said judgmentDonly discusses the status of person in relation to State, who hasmigrated to and has not anywhere discussed situation where personhaving migrated to another State was returning to his State of origin andat that time the issue of Scheduled Caste status being raised and agitatedlike the present case. He submitted that even the said decision also onlyEdiscuses Scheduled Caste status with respect to employment /educationor the like and purchase or sale of property that has not been lookedinto.3.5 It is submitted that the purchase of the property is out ofone’s own fund i.e., for lawful consideration from another and doesFnot necessarily require State reservation or other limitation and isessentially free act determined in open market, regulated only to theextent of its mode of execution by law and has to be looked as such. Itis submitted that the appellant – original defendant therefore shouldnot be denied benefits of land purchased from his own hard-earnedGmoney.

3.6 It is submitted that even the respondent – original plaintiffcannot be permitted to question 1972 sale in 1977 after 5 years for thefirst time. It is submitted that this fact itself goes to show mala fides ofthe respondent – original plaintiff and abuse of process of law thereafterHto deny appellant – original defendant his rightful land. It is submitted

that the consideration received has been retained all throughout by therespondent – original plaintiff and the appellant – original defendant hasbeen depositing compounding fees in terms of Section 13A of theRajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, he should not be deniedthe benefits of his land.

Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the presentAppeal and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passedby the Division Bench.

4. 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 person, who is memberof Scheduled Caste in Punjab, where he is residing, can claim the benefitof Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan in relation to Section 42 of the RajasthanColonization Act, 1954 is squarely covered by the decision of this Hon’bleCourt dated 01.11.2018 in Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand& Ors. in Civil Appeal No.8425/2013. It is submitted that afterconsidering two constitution Bench judgments, in the case of MarriChandra Shekar Rao Vs. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College andOthers, (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue of CasteCertificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the Stateof Maharashtra and Another (supra), it is held that merely because inthe migrant State, the same caste is recognized as Scheduled Caste, amigrant cannot be recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State.It is submitted that therefore applying the law laid down by this Courtand the aforesaid decisions, the Division Bench of the High Court hasrightly allowed the Appeal and has rightly held that the appellant – originaldefendant, being the resident of State of Punjab and being member ofScheduled Caste in State of Punjab, cannot claim benefit of ScheduledCaste in Rajasthan, and therefore, the transaction between the respondent- plaintiff and the appellant - original defendant is hit by Section 42 of theRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

4.2 It is further submitted that even the aforesaid issue is coveredby another decision of this Court in the case of Bir Singh Vs. Delhi JalBoard, (2018) 10 SCC 312 (paragraph 34). It is submitted thattherefore no interference of this Court is called for in exercise of powersunder Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

A4.3 It is submitted that in the present case the suit was filed by therespondent - original plaintiff for ejectment and for declaring the saledeed dated 21.06.1972 as void being in violation of Section 42 of theRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the RajasthanColonization Act, 1954. It is submitted that in the present case the landwas purchased by Puran Singh non-Scheduled Caste in the name ofBBhadar Ram when the respondent – original plaintiff borrowed somemoney from him for his medical treatment. It is submitted that thereforethe same can be said to be in breach of Section 13 of the RajasthanColonization Act, 1954 as well as Section 42 of the Rajasthan TenancyAct, 1955. It is further submitted that even otherwise the appellant –Coriginal defendant is resident of Punjab and not of Rajasthan. It issubmitted that in the bainama, his address is shown as Village Burajwala,Tehsil, Fajilka, District Firozpur, Punjab and he is resident of Punjab. It issubmitted that in the mutation record also, his address is shown as thatof Punjab. In the cross examination, he has submitted that he was residentof Punjab. It was not case set up by him that he was in fact residentDof Rajasthan and had migrated to Punjab.

4.4 It is submitted that the appellant – original defendant claims tobe resident of Rajasthan only on the ground that his grandfather hadland in Rajasthan. It is submitted that holding land in Rajasthan does notipso facto lead to the conclusion that the person belongs to that State.EThere is no evidence of birth of appellant – original defendant in Rajasthan.It is submitted that therefore the transaction is hit by Section 42 of theRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

4.5 It is submitted that even otherwise the appellant – BhadarRam was in fact the benami holder for Puran Singh who was not aFmember of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan. The land was found to be inpossession of Puran Singh. The learned trial Court specifically observedthat the possession is of Puran Singh. The learned trial Court alsoobserved that the possession is found to be with Puran Singh when theauthorities went to deliver the possession to the respondent – originalGplaintiff in pursuance to the order passed by the learned trial Court. It issubmitted that therefore the sale deed is in violation of Section 13 of theRajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.

4.6 It is submitted that even otherwise the Board of Revenuecould not have given the benefit of compounding under Section 13 toHthe appellant – original defendant. It is submitted that the benefit of

compounding can only be given if the transferee was in possession. Inthe present case, the transferee – appellant was not in possession, andtherefore, the benefit of compounding could not have been given to theappellant – original defendant. The permission of compounding can onlybe given by the State Government and not the Board of Revenue. It issubmitted that even otherwise the provisions under Section 13A couldhave been exercised up to 13.06.1987 whereas Board has exercised iton 25.04.1989, which is beyond the time limit.

Making the above submissions and relying upon the abovedecisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present Appeal.

5. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respectiveparties at length. The short question, which is posed for the considerationof this Court is, Whether the land transaction in favour of the appellant -original defendant was illegal and in violation of Section 42 of the RajasthanTenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,1954 being person belonging to Scheduled Caste of State of Punjab?

6. It is not in dispute that the land in question is situated within theState of Rajasthan. The land in question was allotted to one Chunilal –father of the respondent – original plaintiff, being Scheduled Castelandless person. According to the respondent – original plaintiff, the saidChunilal borrowed sum of Rs.5000/- from one Puran Singh (Jat - HighCaste) and under the guise of documentation, the said Puran Singhfraudulently made Chunilal to sign sale deed in favour of the appellantherein – Bhadar Ram, resident of Punjab. Thus, according to therespondent – original plaintiff, in effect the sale was in favour of the saidPuran Singh. However, the said Puran Singh got the sale deed executedin favour of the appellant herein – Bhadar Ram, being person belongingto Scheduled Caste (Scheduled Caste in Punjab). According to therespondent – original plaintiff, all throughout, the land was in possessionof the said Puran Singh, who was not Scheduled Caste person andeven after the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Courtwhen the possession was handed over to the respondent – 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 therespondent – original plaintiff that the sale transaction in favor of BhadarRam was in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,1954. It was also the case on behalf of the respondent – original plaintiffthat the sale transaction was also in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan

ATenancy Act, 1955 in as much as the appellant – Bhadar Ram wasbelonging to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and he was thepermanent resident of State of Punjab. However, it was the case onbehalf of the appellant - original defendant that he being person belongingto Scheduled Caste, the sale deed in his favour cannot be said to be inbreach of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. It was alsoBthe case on behalf of the appellant - original defendant that he has migratedto Rajasthan and as his grandfather and father had purchased theagricultural lands in the State of Rajasthan, and therefore, he can be saidto be the permanent resident of State of Rajasthan.

6.1 Whether the appellant herein – original defendant – purchaserCof the land in question, situated in the State of Rajasthan, can be said tobe an ordinarily resident of State of Rajasthan, it is to be noted that inbainama, his address is shown as Village Burajwala, Tehsil Fajilka, DistrictFirozpur, Punjab. In the mutation record also, his address is shown asthat of Punjab. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he was aDresident of Punjab. However, according to the appellant – original plaintiff,as his grandfather and father had purchased the lands in the State ofRajasthan, he can be said to be an ordinarily resident of State of Rajasthan.The aforesaid cannot be accepted. Merely because his grandfather andfather had purchased the agricultural lands in the State of Rajasthan, theappellant cannot be said to be an ordinarily resident of Rajasthan.E

‘Ordinarily Resident’ has been defined under theRepresentation of the People Act, 1950. As per Section 20(1) ofthe Representation of the People Act, 1950, ‘ordinarily resident’ meansa person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in constituencyon the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, dwelling houseFtherein. 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 theGRajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, it is to be noted that as perSection 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, there is restriction onsale, gift or bequest by member of Scheduled Caste in favour of aperson, who is not member of Scheduled Caste. Looking to the objectand purpose of such provision, it can be said that the said provision is

to protect member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very Statehe belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan. Being aScheduled Caste in the State of Punjab whether the sale transaction infavour of the appellant - original defendant could have been saved fromthe bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is now notres integra. In the case of Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) inparagraph 10 it is observed and held as under:

“10. It has, however, to be borne in mind that man does notcease to belong to his caste by migration to better or moresocially free and liberal atmosphere. But if sufficiently long timeis spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions and handicapssuffered by belonging to socially disadvantageous communitydo not continue and the natural talent of man or woman or aboy or girl gets full scope to flourish. These, however, are problemsof social adjustment i.e how far protection has to be given to acertain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for howlong to become equal with others is matter of delicate socialadjustment. These must be so balanced in the mosaic of thecountry’s integrity that no section or community should causedetriment or discontentment to other community or part ofcommunity or section. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribesbelonging to particular area of the country must be givenprotection so long as and to the extent they are entitled in order tobecome equal with others. But equally those who go to otherareas should also ensure that they make way for the disadvantagedand disabled of that part of the community who suffer fromdisabilities in those areas. In other words, Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require necessaryprotection as balanced between other communities. But equallythe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra,in the instant case, do require protection in the State ofMaharashtra, which will have to be in balance to other communities.This must be the basic approach to the problem. If one bears thisbasic approach in mind, then the determination of the controversyin the instant case does not become difficult.”

While holding so, it is observed in the aforesaid decision that theScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some States had to suffer thesocial disadvantages and did not have the facilities for development and

Agrowth, and therefore, in order to make them equal in those areas wherethey have so suffered and are in the state of underdevelopment, to havereservations or protection in their favour so that they can compete onequal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of thecommunity, particular caste who has suffered more in particularState might be given reservations or protection in their favour. It is alsoBobserved that social condition of State varies from State to State and itwill not be proper to generalize any Caste or any Tribe as ScheduledCaste 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 ofCMaharashtra and Another (supra) after considering the decision ofthis Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) thequestion arose, Whether person belonging to caste or tribe specifiedfor the purpose of Constitution to be Scheduled Caste or ScheduledTribe in relation to State migrates to State B, where caste or tribeDwith the same nomenclature is specified for the purposes of Constitutionto be Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in relation to that State B,will that person be entitled to claim the privileges and benefits admissibleto persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and /or Scheduled Tribe inState B? Holding that person belonging to Scheduled Caste /ScheduledTribe in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or anEordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any otherState on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment,education etc. In paragraph Nos.3 and 16 it is observed and held asunder:“3. On plain reading of clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 it isFmanifest that the power of the President is limited to specifyingthe castes or tribes which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution,be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relationto State or Union Territory, as the case may be. Once anotification is issued under clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 ofGthe Constitution, Parliament can by law include in or exclude fromthe list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, specified in thenotification, any caste or tribe but save for that limited purposethe notification issued under clause (1), shall not be varied by anysubsequent notification. What is important to notice is that thecastes or tribes have to be specified in relation to given State orH

Union Territory. That means given caste or tribe can be aScheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State orUnion Territory for which it is specified. These are the relevantprovisions with which we shall be concerned while dealing withthe grievance made in this petition.”

“16. We may add that considerations for specifying particularcaste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward classes in given State would dependon the nature and extent of disadvantages and social hardshipssuffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which may betotally non est in another State to which persons belonging theretomay migrate. Coincidentally it may be that caste or tribe bearingthe same nomenclature is specified in two States but theconsiderations on the basis of which they have been specifiedmay be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages ofvarious elements which constitute the input for specification mayalso be totally different. Therefore, merely because given casteis specified in State as Scheduled Caste does not necessarilymean that if there be another caste bearing the same nomenclaturein another State the person belonging to the former would beentitled to the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to memberof the Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for the purposes ofthis Constitution”. This is an aspect which has to be kept in mindand which was very much in the minds of the Constitution-makersas is evident from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342of the Constitution. That is why in answer to question by MrJaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:“He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing amember of Scheduled Tribe living in tribal area migrates toanother part of the territory of India, which is outside both thescheduled area and the tribal area, will he be able to claimfrom the local Government, within whose jurisdiction he maybe residing the same privileges which he would be entitled towhen he is residing within the scheduled area or within thetribal area? It is difficult question for me to answer. If thatmatter is agitated in quarters where decision on matter likethis would lie, we would certainly be able to give some answerto the question in the form of some clause in this Constitution.

ABut so far as the present Constitution stands, member of aScheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal areawould certainly not be entitled to carry with him the privilegesthat he is entitled to when he is residing in scheduled area ora tribal area. So far as I can see, it will be practicably impossibleto enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduledBareas, in areas other than those which are covered bythem.......”

Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that thepetitioner was not entitled to admission to the medical college onthe basis that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe in the State of hisCorigin.”

8. The decision of this Court in the case of Action Committee onIssue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribesin the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) shall be applicablewith full force to the facts of the present case also. The submission onDbehalf of the appellant - original defendant that the said decision shallnot be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case theCourt was considering the issue with respect to employment, educationand in the present case dispute is with respect to sale /sale of propertyhas no substance and cannot be accepted. The reasoning given by thisECourt in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificateto Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State ofMaharashtra and Another (supra) are on interpretation and on plainreading of Clause I of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India,which are referred to hereinabove. We see no reason to restrict theapplicability of the decision of this Court in the case of Action CommitteeFon Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra) only withrespect to employment, education or the like and not to make applicablethe same with respect to purchase and sale of the property in case ofsale and purchase of the land belonging to Scheduled Caste person inGthe State of Rajasthan and when the said land was allotted to the originalland owner – Chunilal as Scheduled Caste landless person.

9. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the subsequentdecision in the case of Ranjana Kumari (supra), Three Judge Benchof this Court had an occasion to consider the same issue. Before thisHCourt the appellant belonged to Valmiki Caste (Scheduled Caste of the

State of Punjab), who married person belonging to Valmiki Caste ofUttarakhand migrated to that State. It was found that in the State ofUttarakhand also under the Presidential order ‘Valmiki’ was alsorecognized as notified Scheduled Caste. Even the State of Uttarakhandalso issued certificate to the appellant. However, the State ofUttarakhand denied the benefit, which may be available to the ScheduledCaste belonging to State of Uttarakhand. Thereafter the appellantapproached the High Court. The High Court rejected the claim. Thedecision of the High Court was carried before this Court. While dismissingthe Appeal, it is observed in paragraph 4 as under:“4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in MarriChandra Shekar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College &Ors. and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate toScheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State ofMaharashtra & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr. have taken theview that merely because in the migrant State the same caste isrecognized as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognizedas Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. The issuance of castecertificate by the State of Uttarakhand, as in the present case,cannot dilute the rigours of the Constitution Bench Judgments inMarri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) and Action Committee(supra).”

10. In view of the above, the appellant – original defendant beinga Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and being an ordinarilyand permanent resident of the State of Punjab cannot claim the benefitof Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of purchaseof the land belonging to 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 wasin clear breach and / or in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan TenancyAct, 1955.

11. Even otherwise, in the facts and circumstances of the case,the sale transaction in favour of the appellant - original defendant can besaid 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 thebenefit of provisions of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act,1954 in favour of the appellant - original defendant and the Board

Apermitted the appellant - original defendant to pay compounding feesand regularized the transaction. However, it is required to be noted thatwhen the Board of Revenue granted the benefit of compounding underSection 13A(2), an order of ejection of the appellant - original defendantwas already passed against him and Puran Singh, and the possessionwas already handed over to the respondent – original plaintiff from PuranBSingh, who was found to be in actual physical possession of the land on30.12.1980. Section 13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954would be applicable only in case where an order of ejectment hasbeen passed, but person against whom an order of ejectment has beenpassed has not actually been ejected from the land transferred. In thatCview of the matter, no order of compounding in favour of the appellant -original defendant and /or even Puran Singh could have been passed bythe Board of Revenue in exercise of power under Section 13(A)(2) ofthe Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, also the order passedby the Board of Revenue confirmed by the learned Single Judge permitting

compounding was contrary to Section 13A(2) of the RajasthanDColonization Act, 1954, and therefore, also the land transaction in questionis 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 inbreach of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and SectionE42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which is rightly held to be voidby the Division Bench of the High Court. We are in complete agreementwith the view taken by the Division Bench. Under the circumstances,the present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and isaccordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of theFcase, there shall be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal dismissed.