Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 1185 (RAJ)

Jassa Ram v. Board of Revenue, Ajmer

1999-09-15

B.J.SHETHNA

body1999
Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner Jassa Ram belongs to Schedule Caste. He is son of late Chunni Lal who was allotted land as landless person on a concessional rates. Puran Singh, respondent No.4 is not a Scheduled Caste person, but respondents No.5 Bhadar Ram seems to be a Scheduled caste person. (2). It is the case of petitioner that his father was poor and illiterate man and in need of money, therefore, he requested Puran Singh to lend some money for which he was prepared to mortgage the land in question. Chunni Lal took Rupees 15,000/-and executed a deed under the impression that he was executing the mortgage-deed in favour of Puran Singh. But lateron he came to know that Puran Singh got sale deed executed in favour of Bhadar Ram, respondent No.5. When he came to know about this, he filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed on the ground that it was executed in favour of Bhadar Ram due to mischief and fraud played by Puran Singh. It is further submitted that suit No. 147/87 was decreed by the trial court on 13.10.80 (Annex.1). Bhadar Ram challenged the same in appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority which was also dismissed on 31.5.84 by Revenue Appellate Authority (Annex.2). Then, Bhadar Ram filed second appeal under Sec. 224 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act before the Board of Revenue which was allowed by it vide order dated 25.4.89 (Annex.3) and the orders passed by both the courts below i.e. Annex.1 and 2 were set aside and the suit was dismissed. The order Annex.3 passed by Board of Revenue on 25.4.89 is challenged by petitioner before this Court. (3). Mr. Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner raises only one submission in this petition. It was submitted by him that transfer made by way of sale-deed in favour of respondent No.5 Bhadar Ram by late Chunni Lal, father of petitioner was in clear violation of Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act because Bhadar Ram may be a Scheduled Caste person. Bhadar Ram is Meghwal by caste which is Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan, but he is native of Punjab where Meghwal community is not considered as Scheduled Case. He, therefore, submitted that transfer was void, illegal and in violation of Sec. 42 of the Act. Bhadar Ram is Meghwal by caste which is Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan, but he is native of Punjab where Meghwal community is not considered as Scheduled Case. He, therefore, submitted that transfer was void, illegal and in violation of Sec. 42 of the Act. In support of his submission, he relied upon the Judgment of Supreme Court in case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharastra & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1). He has also relied upon the Judgment of Division Bench of Orissa High Court in case of K. Appa Rao vs. Director of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa & Ors. (2). (4). In Action Committee case (supra), the Honble Supreme Court held that a person belonging to SC/ST in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or ordinary 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 short, the submission of Mr. Siddiqui was that Bhadar Ram was from Punjab and in Punjab, Meghwal community is not considered as Scheduled Caste. He, therefore, submitted that Bhadar Ram must be considered to be a non-Scheduled Caste person and, therefore, the transfer effected by late Chunni Lal, father of petitioner in favour of Bhadar Ram by way of sale-deed must be held to be bad and in violation of Sec. 42 of the Act, and therefore, it should be set aside. This Judgment of Honble Supreme Court would have helped the petitioner, if the caste of respondent No.5 was considered as Scheduled Caste in Punjab and not in Rajasthan. (5). However, it is undisputed fact that respondent No.5 Bhadar Ram is Meghwal which is considered to be Scheduled Caste in State of Rajasthan. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that transfer effected by Chunni Lal who was Scheduled Caste in favour of Bhadar Ram by way of sale-deed was bad and in violation of Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. (6). In K.Appa Raos case(supra) also, the facts were totally different. There also, petitioner was not member of Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State in which he was residing. Hence, that judgment of Orissa High Court will not be applicable in this case. (7). (6). In K.Appa Raos case(supra) also, the facts were totally different. There also, petitioner was not member of Scheduled Tribe in relation to the State in which he was residing. Hence, that judgment of Orissa High Court will not be applicable in this case. (7). Except the above contention, no other contention was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Going through the reasons assigned by learned Board of Revenue in second appeal while allowing the same, it cannot be said that Board of Revenue has committed any error either on facts or law which requires interference by this court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. (8). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is dismissed. Stay petition stands also rejected. The interim order, if any, granted stands vacated.