Allahabad High Court examines tribal identity after religious conversion.

The Allahabad High Court recently upheld orders declaring three land purchases by a woman claiming Scheduled Tribe status void, holding that while a change of religion does not by itself end a person's tribal status, she must establish that she continued to retain her tribal identity and connection with the community.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar dismissed three connected writ petitions filed by Nanhki alias Naimunnisha, challenging orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Duddhi, Sonbhadra, on January 22, 2026. The revenue authority had declared her purchases void and directed that the disputed land be dealt with according to law, including vesting in the State.

Scheduled Tribe status after conversion

The petitioner claimed that she was born into the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe and relied on an ST certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Duddhi. She had purchased agricultural land in Sonbhadra through registered sale deeds and maintained that her vendors also belonged to a Scheduled Tribe. She said the caste status of the parties was disclosed in the sale deeds and that she had remained in possession of the properties.

The State, however, relied on inquiry reports, identity documents and the family register to contend that the petitioner had married Sirajuddin according to Islamic rites, subsequently came to be known as Naimunnisha, lived with him for several decades and raised two children, Ejajuddin and Haseena Bano. The family register recorded her religion as Muslim, the State said.

The high court rejected any automatic rule that conversion ends ST status.

“The question whether, notwithstanding conversion, a person continues to remain a member of the tribe is essentially a question of fact,” court said, adding that tribal traits, customs, traditions and continuing connection with the community have to be examined.

Continuing community ties

Court said the State's case did not rest merely on the petitioner's marriage or a single document describing her as Muslim. Instead, it concerned a “course of circumstances extending over several decades”.

These included her subsequent name, prolonged association with her husband, the names of her children and the family register entry. Court said these circumstances could not individually be treated as conclusive, but also could not be ignored while deciding whether she had retained her tribal identity.

More importantly, court found that the petitioner had not produced convincing evidence showing that she continued to follow Bhuiyan customs and traditions, participated in the community's social life or continued to be recognised by it.

“The material before the court does not satisfactorily establish such continuity,” it said.

Court clarified that it was not holding that a woman automatically loses tribal status after marrying outside her community, nor that every custom must be observed throughout her life. Its conclusion was based on the cumulative circumstances and the absence of evidence showing continued tribal life.

Registered sale deeds cannot override statutory bar

Court also rejected the argument that the ST certificate, registered sale deeds and revenue entries protected the transactions.

It said an ST certificate is relevant evidence but does not prevent examination of a person's continuing tribal status when subsequent material raises questions about it. Similarly, “registration of an instrument establishes its registration; it does not, by itself, validate a transaction which is prohibited by a mandatory provision of law".

Court held that under the statutory regime applicable to the transfers, Section 157-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act restricted transfer of land by a Scheduled Tribe member to a person who did not possess the required ST status. Once the petitioner failed to establish that status on the relevant dates, the transfers were hit by the prohibition and were void under Section 166, with consequences under Section 167.

Court also declined to interfere on the ground of delay, saying a transaction prohibited by law cannot become valid merely because years have passed, revenue entries have been made or possession has continued.

It accordingly dismissed all three petitions, affirmed the January 22 orders and vacated any interim protection granted to the petitioner.

Case title: Nanhki @ Naimunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Order date: September 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar

Tags: