Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that a person of the Scheduled Caste belonging to a particular state, being an ordinarily and permanent resident of that state cannot claim the benefit of a Scheduled Caste from another state.

In the case before court, the appellant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab was denied from claiming 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 granted to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person.

It was further held that the sale transaction in favour of the appellant was in clear breach and/or in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonisation Act, 1954.

---

Key Facts:

A dispute arose 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, Jassa Ram.

As per Jassa Ram in the year 1972, 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 Bhadar Ram, who was a resident of Punjab.

Accordingly, 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 was void and ineffective.

When the matter reached the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, it allowed the said Appeal holding that the appellant being the resident and Scheduled Caste belonging to the State of Punjab could   not   have   taken   the   benefit   of   his   being Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan. 

The Division Bench relied upon the decision of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India and Another.

In Action Committee, the question that arose for consideration was 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? 

While answering the said question, it was held that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an 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.

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against this.

Top Court's observations:

A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna rejected the appeal and accepted the position of the Action committee which the High Court relied on.

Bench noted that although, the said Puran Singh got the sale deed executed in favour of the appellant Bhadar Ram, being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste in Punjab, the respondent had submitted that all throughout, the land was in possession of the said Puran Singh, who was not a Scheduled Caste person.

The court further noted that merely because the appellant’s 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.

Referring to Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the bench noted that 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 belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan….”, added the Court.

Relying on Marri Chandra Shekar Rao v. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and Others, the Court remarked 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.

With this view, the court held that the appeal failed and the same deserved to be dismissed.

Cause Title: BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS v. JASSA RAM & ORS.