JUDGMENT : K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. - The petitioner who claims himself to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe being a 'Bhuyan' filed a case before opp. party No.. 2-oub-Divisioial Officer, Kaptipada, Mayurbhanj alleging that he had sold M-3-3-3-8 of land pertaining to Plot Nos. 331 and 341 of Khata No. 57 in mouza Barhadiha under registered sale deed No. 1470 dated 1-5-1970 to one Sambhu Mohanto since deceased, the father of the present Opp. party Nos. 3 to 5. Since no permission "was taken from the competent authority for effecting the aforesaid transfer, he filed an application on 10-9-1976 for declaring the sale void and for restoration of the land to his possession. 2. The said application was registered as Regulation-ll Case No. 874 of 1976 in the Court of the opp. party No. 2 (S. D. O., Kaptipadi) in which two witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner and 3 witnesses were examined on behalf of opp. party Nos. 3 to 5 which included opp. parties Nos. 3 and 5 and another attesting witness to the sale deed, Opp. party No. 2, however, rejected the petition on the ground that the petitioner while seiling his land, described himself to be a person belonging to a caste namely 'Rajkula Bhuyan' and which does not find place in the schedule of the Presidential (Scheduled Tribas), 1950 and as such he is not a member of Scheduled tribe. The petitioner thereafter found that the finding of the opp. party No. 2 was due to his misreading of the evidence resulting commission of error on the face of the record as he wrongly read the evidence that the petitioner had stated not to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe whereas such was not the case. The petitioner, accordingly preferred an appeal against the said order of opp. party No. 2 dated 31-12-1982 alleging therein that nowhere he had said that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and the opo. party No. 2 did commit an error appearent on the face of the record in that regard. 3. The appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate (O.L.R.), Mayurbhanj was registered as Regulation-Il Case No, 4 of 1983. party No. 2 dated 31-12-1982 alleging therein that nowhere he had said that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and the opo. party No. 2 did commit an error appearent on the face of the record in that regard. 3. The appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate (O.L.R.), Mayurbhanj was registered as Regulation-Il Case No, 4 of 1983. After hearing ex parte, the appellate authority by his order dated 10-10-1983 categorically found that 'Bhuyan' is the main caste and any adjective used before this 'Bhuyan was to identify a sub-caste and held that evidence showed that the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe and accordingly declared the impugned transaction as void, set aside the order passed by opp. party No. 2 dated 31-12-1982 and directed that the land should be restored to the appellant. In addition he further directed that opp. party Nos. 3 to 5, should pay penalty of Rs. 500/-. 4. However, on an application being filed by opp. party Nos. 3 to 5, the said ex parte order was set aside and the case was reheard and by his order dated 19-3-1984, the appellate authority (opp. party No. 1) held that since 'Rajkula Bhuyan' does not find place in the Presidential Schedule, the petitioner could not be said to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe and was not entitled to the benefit of Regulation-II of 1956 and rejected the appeal. Against that order dated 19-3-1984 of the Addl. District Magistrate- opp. party No. 1 passed on rehearing of the case, the petitioner prefers this writ application. 5. In a case of Secretary, Works Department, Govt. of Orissa and Another Vs. Govinda Choudhury, as well in K. Adikanda Patra and Others Vs. Gandua and Others, a Division Bench of this Court had laid down certain principles which should be kept in mind while determining the question whether a person is a member of Scheduled Triba as specified in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 or not. (1) Generally speaking it would not be open to any person to lead evidence to establish that a particular caste/tribe is a part of caste/tribe notified in the Constitution (Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes) Order. (2) It is clear from Arts, 341/342 that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Arts. (2) It is clear from Arts, 341/342 that in order to determine whether or not a particular caste/tribe is a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of Arts. 341/342 one has to look at the public notification issued by the President in that behalf. (3) The name by which a tribe or sub-tribe/caste or sub-caste is known is not decisive. Even, if the. tribe/caste of a person is different from the name included in the Order issued by the President, it may be shown that name included in the Order is a general name applicable to sub-tribe/sub-castes. (4) Para 2 of the Order provides to the extent material that the tribes, or parts of or groups within the tribes specified in the Schedule to the Order shall also be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes (5) An admission made by a party expressly or by implication that he is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes is evidence against him, but the evidence is not conclusive. 6. In another case of Dadaji alias Dina Vs. Sukhdeobabu and Others, which arose out of an election petition the question for determination whether Kshetriya Bidwaik Mana' community is included in 'Mana' community, as mentioned in Entry. No. 18 of Part-IX (Maharashtra) of the, Order as it stood at the time, of, election in question, By subsequent amendment 'Maina'community was included. in the group of communities headed by Gond community (Entry No. 18). it was argued that a Kshetriya Bidwaik Mana' is a member of the Scheduled Tribe as he belongs to 'Mana' community. The Supreme Court however held that: "We are, therefore, of the view that the 'Mana' community included in Entry No. 18 can only be that which has affinity with 'Goods' and any other community which also bears the name, 'Mana' but does not have any such affinity cannot be deemed to fail within the scops of 'Mana' in Entry No. 18." 7. In a decision of this High Court reported in 1973 (2) CWR 990 (Bimala Peria v. Thabir Dandia) which was a case under the Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956/ the question for ccnsideration was whether 'jara Sivars' are 'Sav-irs' as mentioned in the Order. In a decision of this High Court reported in 1973 (2) CWR 990 (Bimala Peria v. Thabir Dandia) which was a case under the Orissa Regulation 2 of 1956/ the question for ccnsideration was whether 'jara Sivars' are 'Sav-irs' as mentioned in the Order. It was contended before the Court that there was no classification as 'Jara Savar' and it was not for the competent authority to construe the entry 'Savar' to be of the same class as 'Jira Savar'. This Court ultimately remanded the case to the appellate authority for fresh determination as to whether opp. party No. 1 belongs to the Scheduled Tribe. 8. In (Madan Kamaraju v. Special Officor) registered as O.J. C. No. 263 of 1974, this Court vide order dated 21-1-1976 held that Kapu Sauras' is not a Scheduled Tribe within the State of Orissa. It was a case under Regulation 2 of 1956 and the contention before the Court was that 'Kapu Sauras' are 'Sauras' within the meaning of Entry No. 59 of the Schedule to the Order. So also in (Prasanna Mishal v. Jain Jamana) reported in 1977(2) CWR. 681, this Court held that 'Kampa Soura' is not a Schedjiad Tribe v/ithin the State of Orissa. This case also arose out of Regulation No. 2 of 1956 and the question for determination was also whether 'Kampa Sauras' are included in the categories of 'Sauras' mentioned in the Order. 9. As has been discussed above, if any one claims that he belongs to a sub-tribe or sub-class of a particular tribe or caste mentioned in the Schedule of Presidential Order, 19S0, the onus is on him to prove that by cogent evidence. Merely making an assertion will not help in determination in that regard. In the present case the petitioner described himself as a person belonging 'Rajkula Bhuyan' in the deed of sale and had stated in his evidence that he was a 'Bhuyan' though styled at times saying that he belonged to 'Rajkula Bhuyan' and should be treated as a 'Bhuyan' and thus, a person belonging to Scheduled' Tribe. The addition of an adjective 'Rajkula' to his caste or tribe makes all the difference. Not necessarily,' when an adjective is added to the name of a tribe mentioned in the Presidential Order would mean that he must be a sub-tribe of the 'Tribe' referred to in the Order. It may or may not. The addition of an adjective 'Rajkula' to his caste or tribe makes all the difference. Not necessarily,' when an adjective is added to the name of a tribe mentioned in the Presidential Order would mean that he must be a sub-tribe of the 'Tribe' referred to in the Order. It may or may not. Each case must be considered on the evidence available in that regard. No documentary evidence has been produced to show that Rajkula Bhuyan is same or sub-tribe of the tribe generally known as'Bhuyan'. The exidence of the P. Ws. only indicate that petitioner is a 'Bhuyan' and hence a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The opp. party, vender had however, stated in. his evidence that since the vendor was a 'Rajkula Bhuyan', the permission was not necessary to be obtained for transfer of land. This would impliedly indicate that according to this witness the petitioner was not a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has not produced sufficient material to prove his point 10. The learned Addl. District Magistrate, however, has held the petitioner not to belong to the Scheduled Tribe as 'Rajkula Bhuyan' did not find place in the Schedule of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. As already indicated the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is not decisive. Even if the tribe of a person is different from the name included in the order issued by the President, it may be shown that the name included in the Order is a general name applicable to the sub-tribe. The ground shown by the Addl. District Magistrate holding the petitioner conclusively as not a tribe cannot be said to a correct ground for such decision. 11. The impugned order of the Addl. District Magistrate is accordingly set aside and the case is remanded back to the initial authority the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kaptipada, Mayurbhanj for fresh determination as to whether opp. party No. 1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe by affording opportunity to both the parties, to lead further evidence, if they so desire. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed but there shall be no order as to costs. P.C. Misra, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed