Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 73 (ORI)

Chinnabai Reddy v. Arjun Pujari

2017-01-16

BISWANATH RATH

body2017
JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. This writ petition has been filed assailing the impugned orders under Annexures-1 & 2 to this petition passed by the competent Authorities. 2. Short background involved in this case is that there were six cases involving the petitioner bearing Case Nos.6/95 to 11/95. The said cases involved purchase of properties from six scheduled tribe persons. The proceedings were initiated under Regulation-2 of 1956 under an allegation that the sale transactions are void for being executed in absence of any permission for purchase of property belonging to a Scheduled Tribe from Competent Authority in terms of the requirement of the Statute. The proceedings were closed after providing opportunity to the petitioner, the opposite parties therein and while allowing all the proceedings, the compete authority observed that the petitioner not being a citizen of this State, the caste certificate issued by some other State in favour of the petitioner had no relevancy. Under this circumstance, it was observed that for absence of permission by the competent authority, all the transactions remained invalid. Six appeals were filed and the appeals at the instance of the petitioner were also heard together and dismissed by a common judgment relying the notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide No.3511/72-RU (SCT-V) of April, 1975 restricting the benefits of the caste certificate in favour of a person granted by the competent authority of one State to another State in case of migration of the person concerned to the other State. 3. In assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though admittedly the petitioner belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh but he was issued with a caste certified clearly indicating therein that the petitioner belong to the Scheduled Tribe by the competent authority in Andhra Pradesh and for his being a Scheduled Tribe based on the certificate issued by the competent authority, the compete authority in Andhra Pradesh, the purchase made in this State of the properties belonging to the Scheduled Tribe did not require any permission from the competent authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that rejection of the case of the petitioner is based on the circular issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide No.3511/72-RU (SCT-V) of April, 1975 even though illegally referred and considered but the observations of the competent authority as well as of the revisional authority remain contrary to the provisions contained in Regulation-2 of 1956. It is under these premises, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for interfering in the impugned order and setting aside the same. 4. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand, supporting the impugned orders contended that the petitioner admittedly belongs to Andhra Pradesh and there was no certificate issued by the competent authority of this State certifying that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. Further referring to the circular issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs referred to hereinabove, learned State Counsel contended that for the restrictions contained therein, there has been no illegal consideration of the case of the petitioner either by the original authority or by the appellate authority. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to Andhra Pradesh and the certificate establishing that the petitioner as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Andhra Pradesh being issued by the competent authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Now coming to the circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India vide letter No.BO-16014-L-82-SC&BC D-I dated 22.2.88, this Court finds, keeping in view the mishandling of the issues involving persons migrate in other State or Union Territory is active consideration of the issues issued letter No.BO-16014-L-82-SC&BC D-I dated 22.2.88 restricting the benefit of caste certificate in favour of a person migrated to other State. Considering a similar situation, a Single Bench of this court in a case in between Banamali Mallick versus Sub-Collector, Keonjhar and others as reported in 2012 (Supp.-I) OLR-843 referring to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of Marri Chandra Shekar Rao versus Dean Seth G.S. Medical College and others as reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 held the decision of the competent authority in similar nature is legally justified. Case in hand is squarely covered by the above decision. Case in hand is squarely covered by the above decision. In view of the above, this Court observes that there was no material produced by the petitioner that he is a Scheduled Tribe person belonging to the State of Orissa. This Court also finds the circular dated 22.2.88 also gets support of another previous circular of the Ministry of Home Affairs issued in 1975 being issued in exercise of power under Article 342 of the Constitution of India. For the observations of the appellate authority in the last paragraph of the appellate authorities judgment and the decision of this Court referred to hereinabove, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order and therefore, this Court while declining to interfere in the impugned order dismisses this writ petition. However, this Court makes an observation that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from initiating any proceeding for refund of the amount involved in the sale transaction including the interest.