2022 INSC 0013
1
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON
Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2021
BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS             .. Appellant(s)
Versus
JASSA RAM & ORS.                  ..Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
[1.0] Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   07.04.2011   passed   by
the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jodhpur in Civil Special Appeal No.1398/1999 by which the
Division   Bench   of   High   Court   has   allowed   the   said   Appeal

2
preferred   by   the   respondent   herein   –   original   plaintiff,   the
appellant   herein   ­   original   defendant   –   purchaser   of   the   suit
land in question has preferred the present Appeal. 
[2.0] The   facts   leading   to   the   present   Appeal   in   nutshell
are as under:
[2.1] The   dispute   is   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   herein   –   original   plaintiff.     As   per   the   case   of   the
respondent   –   original   plaintiff,   in   the   year   1972,   the   said
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   herein   –   original
defendant – Bhadar Ram, who was a resident of Punjab.

3
[2.2] The   said   Chunilal   filed   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 dated 21.06.1972 is void
and ineffective and the same is in violation of Section 42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan
Colonization   Act,   1954.     The   said   suit   came   to   be   decreed   by
the   learned   trial   Court   vide   judgment   and   decree   dated
13.10.1980  holding   that   the   land   was  in   possession   of  Puran
Singh   who   was   not   a   Scheduled   Caste   person   and   that   the
sale   deed   is   in   violation   of   Section   13   of   the   Rajasthan
Colonization   Act,   1954   as   well   as   in   breach   of   Section   42   of
the   Rajasthan   Tenancy   Act,   1955   and   therefore,   the   said
Puran   Singh   is   liable   to   be   evicted.     As   per   the   case   of   the
respondent  ­ original  plaintiff, the  possession of  the  land was
handed over to him in pursuance of the decree passed by the
learned   trial   Court.     The   possession   was   found   to   be   with
Puran Singh and not with Bhadar Ram.  Feeling aggrieved and
dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and   order   /decree   passed   by
the learned trial Court, the appellant – original defendant filed

4
Appeal   before   the   Revenue   Appellate   Tribunal.     The   Revenue
Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said Appeal.  The appellant –
original   defendant   filed   the   Appeal   before   the   Board   of
Revenue,   which   came   to   be   allowed   vide   order   dated
25.04.1989 by giving  benefit of compounding  to the appellant
–   original   defendant   on   payment   of   compounding   fees   under
Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.
[2.3] Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   order
passed   by   the   Board   of   Revenue,   the   respondent   –   original
plaintiff filed a Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge of
the   High   Court.     The   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court
dismissed   the   said   Writ   Petition   vide   judgment   and   order
dated   15.09.1999.     The   respondent   –   original   plaintiff
thereafter   preferred   Appeal   before   the   Division   Bench   and   by
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High Court has allowed the said Appeal and has set aside the
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge
holding   that   the   appellant   herein   –   original   defendant,   being

5
the   resident   and   Scheduled   Caste   belonging   to   the   State   of
Punjab,   he   could   not   have   taken   the   benefit   of   his   being
Scheduled Caste in the State of Rajasthan.   While holding so,
the   Division   Bench   of   High   Court   relied   upon   the   decision   of
this Court in the case of  Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate   to   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in
the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Union of India
and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 .
[2.4] Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Division   Bench
of   the   High   Court,   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant   –
purchaser   of   the   land   in   question   has   preferred   the   present
Appeal.
[3.0] Learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
appellant  – original  defendant  has vehemently  submitted that
as   such   all   throughout   the   case   set   up   by   the   respondent   –
original   plaintiff     was   all   alone   that   the   transaction   was   void

6
for   absence   of   prior   permission   as   required   under   Section   13
of   the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954   before   executing   the
sale   between   the   members   of   Scheduled   Caste   and   that   the
appellant   –   original   defendant   has   been   allegedly   used   by
Puran Singh to overcome the bar imposed by Section 42 of the
Rajasthan   Tenancy   Act.     It   is   submitted   that   thus   the
respondent   –   original   plaintiff   admitted   that   the   appellant   –
original   defendant   is   the   Member   of   Scheduled   Caste   and
known  in   the  community  as  such.    It  is  submitted  that  since
there   was   never   a   proper   /formal   issue   framed   qua   the
ordinary   status   of   the   appellant   –   original   defendant   for
determination of caste status in relation of State of Rajasthan,
adequate   evidence   could   not   be   presented,   though   the
appellant’s father – forefathers are residents of Rajasthan.
[3.1] It   is   submitted   that   after   amendment   of   1983,
Section 13A has been inserted in  Rajasthan  Colonization  Act,
1954,   which   permits   compounding   and   regularization   of   the
transaction   executed   without   the   permission   as   required

7
under   Section   13   of   the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954   on
deposit of compounding fees, which was correctly done by the
Board of Revenue in the present case after the amendment.  It
is submitted that, as submitted hereinabove, the main thrust
of the case of the respondent – original plaintiff until then was
that the transaction was not in compliance of Section 13 of the
Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954.     It   is   submitted   that   only
after   the   decision   of   the   Board   of   Revenue,   the   respondent   –
original   plaintiff   shifted   the   focus   to   Section   42   of   the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.
[3.2] It  is   submitted  that   merely   because  the   appellant   –
original   defendant   was   residing   or   has   house   at   Punjab   does
not   make   him   an   ordinarily   resident   of   Punjab.     Reliance   is
placed   on   Section   20(1)   of   the   Representation   of   People   Act,
1950.  It is submitted that therefore a further inquiry into that
aspect   is   /was   required   before   residential   status   is   finally
determined.

8
[3.3] Learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
appellant – original defendant has also relied upon the report
of   the   Action   Committee   on   the   issue   of   caste   certificate   to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes referring to the case of
Action   Committee   on   Issue   of   Caste   Certificate   to
Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in   the   State   of
Maharashtra and Another (supra) .  
[3.4]       Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decision in
the case of   Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate
to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra   and   Another   (supra)   is   concerned ,   it   is
submitted that the said judgment only discusses the status of
a   person   in   relation   to   a   State,   who   has   migrated   to   and   has
not   anywhere   discussed   a   situation   where   a   person   having
migrated to another  State was returning  to his State of origin
and   at   that   time   the   issue   of   Scheduled   Caste   status   being
raised   and   agitated   like   the   present   case.     He   submitted   that
even   the   said   decision   also   only   discuses   Scheduled   Caste

9
status with respect to employment /education or the like and
purchase or sale of property that has not been looked into.
[3.5] It is  submitted that  the purchase of  the  property   is
out   of   one’s   own   fund   i.e.,   for   lawful   consideration   from
another   and   does   not   necessarily   require   State   reservation   or
other   limitation   and   is   essentially   a   free   act   determined   in
open   market,   regulated   only   to   the   extent   of   its   mode   of
execution   by   law   and   has   to   be   looked   as   such.     It   is
submitted   that   the   appellant   –   original   defendant   therefore
should not be denied benefits of land purchased from his own
hard­earned money. 
[3.6] It   is   submitted   that   even   the   respondent   –   original
plaintiff   cannot   be   permitted   to   question   1972   sale   in   1977
after   5   years   for   the   first   time.     It   is   submitted   that   this   fact
itself   goes   to   show   mala   fides   of   the   respondent   –   original
plaintiff   and   abuse   of   process   of   law   thereafter   to   deny
appellant   –   original   defendant   his   rightful   land.     It   is
submitted   that   the   consideration   received   has   been   retained

10
all   throughout   by   the   respondent   –   original   plaintiff   and   the
appellant   –   original   defendant   has   been   depositing
compounding   fees   in   terms   of   Section   13A   of   the   Rajasthan
Colonization Act, 1954, and therefore, he should not be denied
the benefits of his land.  
Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow
the   present   Appeal   and   quash   and   set   aside   the   impugned
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench.
[4.0] The   present   Appeal   is   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.
Christi   Jain,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondent – original plaintiff.
[4.1] It is submitted that the issue whether a person, who
is   a   member   of   Scheduled   Caste   in   Punjab,   where   he   is
residing,   can   claim   the   benefit   of   Scheduled   Caste   in
Rajasthan   in   relation   to   Section   42   of   the   Rajasthan
Colonization   Act,   1954   is   squarely   covered   by   the   decision   of
this Hon’ble Court dated 01.11.2018 in   Ranjana Kumari Vs.
State   of   Uttarakhand   &   Ors.   in   Civil   Appeal

11
No.8425/2013 .     It   is   submitted   that   after   considering   two
constitution Bench judgments, in the case of   Marri Chandra
Shekar   Rao   Vs.   Dean,   Geth   G.S.   Medical   College   and
Others,   (1990)   3  SCC  130   and   Action  Committee   on   Issue
of   Caste   Certificate   to   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled
Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another (supra),  it
is   held   that   merely   because   in   the   migrant   State,   the   same
caste   is   recognized   as   Scheduled   Caste,   a   migrant   cannot   be
recognized   as   Scheduled   Caste   of   the   migrant   State.     It   is
submitted   that   therefore   applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this
Court   and   the   aforesaid   decisions,   the   Division   Bench   of   the
High Court has rightly allowed the Appeal and has rightly held
that   the   appellant   –   original   defendant,   being   the   resident   of
State   of   Punjab   and   being   a   member   of   Scheduled   Caste   in
State   of   Punjab,   cannot   claim   benefit   of   Scheduled   Caste   in
Rajasthan,   and   therefore,   the   transaction   between   the
respondent ­ plaintiff and the appellant ­ original defendant is
hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

12
[4.2] It is further submitted that even the aforesaid issue
is covered by another decision of this Court in the case of   Bir
Singh   Vs.   Delhi   Jal   Board,   (2018)   10   SCC   312   (paragraph
34) .  It is submitted that therefore no interference of this Court
is   called   for   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   136   of   the
Constitution of India.
[4.3] It is submitted that in the present case the suit was
filed by the respondent ­ original plaintiff for ejectment and for
declaring   the   sale   deed   dated   21.06.1972   as   void   being   in
violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and
Section   13   of   the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954.     It   is
submitted that in the present case the land was purchased by
Puran   Singh   a   non­Scheduled   Caste   in   the   name   of   Bhadar
Ram   when   the   respondent   –   original   plaintiff   borrowed   some
money   from   him   for   his   medical   treatment.     It   is   submitted
that therefore the same can be said to be in breach of Section
13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 as well as Section
42   of   the   Rajasthan   Tenancy   Act,   1955.     It   is   further

13
submitted   that   even   otherwise   the   appellant   –   original
defendant  is a  resident of  Punjab  and  not  of Rajasthan.   It is
submitted   that   in   the   bainama,   his   address   is   shown   as
Village   Burajwala,   Tehsil,   Fajilka,   District   Firozpur,   Punjab
and   he   is   resident   of   Punjab.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the
mutation record also, his address is shown as that of Punjab.
In   the   cross   examination,   he   has   submitted   that   he   was
resident   of   Punjab.     It   was   not   a   case   set   up   by   him   that   he
was   in   fact   a   resident   of   Rajasthan   and   had   migrated   to
Punjab.
[4.4] It   is   submitted   that   the   appellant   –   original
defendant   claims   to   be   a   resident   of   Rajasthan   only   on   the
ground   that   his   grandfather   had   land   in   Rajasthan.     It   is
submitted   that   holding   land   in   Rajasthan   does   not   ipso   facto
lead   to   the   conclusion   that   the   person   belongs   to   that   State.
There is no evidence of birth of appellant – original defendant
in Rajasthan.  It is submitted that therefore the transaction is
hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

14
[4.5] It   is   submitted   that   even   otherwise   the   appellant   –
Bhadar   Ram   was   in   fact   the   benami   holder   for   Puran   Singh
who was not a member of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan.  The
land   was   found   to   be   in   possession   of   Puran   Singh.     The
learned trial Court specifically observed that the possession is
of Puran Singh.  The learned trial Court also observed that the
possession   is   found   to   be   with   Puran   Singh   when   the
authorities went to deliver the possession to the respondent –
original   plaintiff   in   pursuance   to   the   order   passed   by   the
learned   trial   Court.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore   the   sale
deed is in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization
Act, 1954.  
[4.6] It   is   submitted   that   even   otherwise   the   Board   of
Revenue   could   not   have   given   the   benefit   of   compounding
under Section 13 A to the appellant – original defendant.  It is
submitted that the benefit of compounding can only be given if
the   transferee   was   in   possession.     In   the   present   case,   the
transferee   –   appellant   was   not   in   possession,   and   therefore,

15
the   benefit   of   compounding   could   not   have   been   given   to   the
appellant   –   original   defendant.     The   permission   of
compounding can only be given by the State Government and
not the Board of Revenue.  It is submitted that even otherwise
the   provisions   under   Section   13A   could   have   been   exercised
up   to   13.06.1987   whereas   Board   has   exercised   it   on
25.04.1989, which is beyond the time limit.  
Making the above submissions and relying upon the
above decisions, it is prayed to dismiss the present Appeal.
[5.0] Heard   learned   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective   parties   at   length.     The   short   question,   which   is
posed for the consideration of this Court is, Whether the land
transaction in favour of the appellant ­ original defendant was
illegal and in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act,   1955   and   Section   13   of   the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,
1954 being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste of State of
Punjab?

16
[6.0] It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   land   in   question   is
situated   within   the   State   of   Rajasthan.     The   land   in   question
was   allotted   to   one   Chunilal   –   father   of   the   respondent   –
original   plaintiff,   being   a   Scheduled   Caste   landless   person.
According   to   the   respondent   –   original   plaintiff,   the   said
Chunilal borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/­ from one Puran Singh
(Jat  ­ High  Caste)  and under  the guise of  documentation,  the
said   Puran   Singh   fraudulently   made   Chunilal   to   sign   a   sale
deed   in   favour   of   the   appellant   herein   –   Bhadar   Ram,   a
resident   of   Punjab.     Thus,   according   to   the   respondent   –
original   plaintiff,   in   effect   the   sale   was   in   favour   of   the   said
Puran Singh. However, the said Puran Singh got the sale deed
executed   in   favour   of   the   appellant   herein   –   Bhadar   Ram,
being a person belonging to Scheduled Caste (Scheduled Caste
in Punjab).  According to the respondent – original plaintiff, all
throughout,   the   land   was   in   possession   of   the   said   Puran
Singh, who was not a Scheduled Caste person and even after
the   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   learned   trial   Court
when   the   possession   was   handed   over   to   the   respondent   –

17
original   plaintiff,   the   possession   was   found   to   be   with   Puran
Singh   and   not   with   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant,   and
therefore, it was the case on behalf of the respondent – original
plaintiff that the sale transaction in favor of  Bhadar Ram was
in   violation   of   Section   13   of   the     Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,
1954.     It   was   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the   respondent   –
original plaintiff that the sale transaction was also in violation
of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 in as much
as   the   appellant   –   Bhadar   Ram   was   belonging   to   Scheduled
Caste   in   the   State   of   Punjab   and   he   was   the   permanent
resident of State of Punjab.  However, it was the case on behalf
of   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant   that   he   being   a   person
belonging   to   Scheduled   Caste,   the   sale   deed   in   his   favour
cannot be said to be in breach of Section 42 of the Rajasthan
Tenancy   Act,   1955.     It   was   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
appellant   ­   original   defendant   that   he   has   migrated   to
Rajasthan   and   as   his   grandfather   and   father   had   purchased
the agricultural lands in the State of Rajasthan, and therefore,

18
he   can   be   said   to   be   the   permanent   resident   of   State   of
Rajasthan.
[6.1] Whether the appellant herein – original defendant –
purchaser   of   the   land   in   question,   situated   in   the   State   of
Rajasthan, can be said to be an ordinarily resident of State of
Rajasthan,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   in   bainama,   his   address   is
shown   as   Village   Burajwala,   Tehsil   Fajilka,   District   Firozpur,
Punjab.   In the mutation record also, his address is shown as
that   of   Punjab.     In   the   cross   examination,   he   has   admitted
that   he   was   a   resident   of   Punjab.     However,   according   to   the
appellant – original plaintiff, as his grandfather and father had
purchased the lands in the State of Rajasthan, he can be said
to   be   an   ordinarily   resident   of   State   of   Rajasthan.     The
aforesaid cannot be accepted.  Merely because his 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.

19
‘Ordinarily   Resident’   has   been   defined   under   the
Representation   of   the   People   Act,   1950 .     As   per   Section
20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, ‘ordinarily
resident’ means a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily
resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or
is in possession of, a dwelling house therein.   Considering the
documentary   evidences   referred   to   hereinabove,   it   cannot   be
said   that   the   appellant   –   original   defendant   is   an   ordinarily
/permanent resident of State of Rajasthan.
[7] Now   whether   the   sale   transaction   in   favour   of   the
appellant ­ original defendant can be said to be in violation of
Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is concerned, it
is to be noted that as per Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy
Act,   1955,   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

20
belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case
the State of Rajasthan.   Being a Scheduled Caste in the State
of   Punjab   whether   the   sale   transaction   in   favour   of   the
appellant ­ original defendant could have been saved from the
bar   under   Section   42   of   the   Rajasthan   Tenancy   Act,   1955   is
now   not   res   integra.     In   the   case   of   Marri   Chandra   Shekar
Rao (supra)  in paragraph 10 it is observed and held as under:
“ 10.   It   has,   however,   to   be   borne   in   mind   that   a
man   does   not   cease   to   belong   to   his   caste   by
migration   to   a   better   or   more   socially   free   and
liberal   atmosphere.     But   if   sufficiently   long   time   is
spent in socially advanced area then the inhibitions
and   handicaps   suffered   by   belonging   to   a   socially
disadvantageous   community   do   not   continue   and
the natural talent of a man or a woman or a boy or
girl gets full scope to flourish.   These, however, are
problems of social adjustment i.e how far protection
has   to   be   given   to   a   certain   segment   of   socially
disadvantaged   community   and   for   how   long   to
become   equal   with   others   is   a   matter   of   delicate
social   adjustment.     These   must   be   so   balanced   in
the mosaic of the country’s integrity that no section
or   community   should   cause   detriment   or
discontentment   to   other   community   or   part   of
community   or   section.     Scheduled   Castes   and
Scheduled   Tribes   belonging   to   a   particular   area   of
the country must be given protection so long as and
to   the   extent   they   are   entitled   in   order   to   become
equal   with   others.     But   equally   those   who   go   to
other areas should also ensure that they make way

21
for   the   disadvantaged   and   disabled   of   that   part   of
the community who suffer from disabilities in those
areas.     In   other   words,   Scheduled   Castes   and
Scheduled Tribes say of Andhra Pradesh do require
necessary   protection   as   balanced   between   other
communities.     But   equally   the   Scheduled   Castes
and   Scheduled   Tribes   say   of   Maharashtra,   in   the
instant   case,   do   require   protection   in   the   State   of
Maharashtra,   which   will   have   to   be   in   balance   to
other   communities.     This   must   be   the   basic
approach   to   the   problem.     If   one   bears   this   basic
approach   in   mind,   then   the   determination   of   the
controversy   in   the   instant   case   does   not   become
difficult.”
While holding  so, it is observed in the aforesaid decision
that   the   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in   some
States had to suffer the social disadvantages and did not have
the   facilities   for   development   and   growth,   and   therefore,   in
order   to   make   them   equal   in   those   areas   where   they   have   so
suffered   and   are   in   the   state   of   underdevelopment,   to   have
reservations   or   protection   in   their   favour   so   that   they   can
compete   on   equal   terms   with   the   more   advantageous     or
developed sections   of  the  community,  a  particular    caste  who
has   suffered   more   in   a   particular   State   might   be   given
reservations   or   protection   in   their   favour.     It   is   also   observed

22
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.
[7.1] In the case of  Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate   to   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in
the   State   of   Maharashtra   and   Another   (supra)   after
considering   the   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Marri
Chandra  Shekar Rao (supra)   the question arose, 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?  Holding
that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe
in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an

23
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. In paragraph Nos.3 and 16 it is
observed and held as under:
“ 3. On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles
341   and   342   it   is   manifest   that   the   power   of   the
President is limited to specifying the castes or tribes
which shall, for the purposes of the Constitution, be
deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
in   relation   to   a   State   or   a   Union   Territory,   as   the
case   may   be.   Once   a   notification   is   issued   under
clause   (1)   of   Articles   341   and   342   of   the
Constitution,   Parliament   can   by   law   include   in   or
exclude   from   the   list   of   Scheduled   Castes   or
Scheduled   Tribes,   specified   in   the   notification,   any
caste   or   tribe   but   save   for   that   limited   purpose   the
notification   issued   under   clause   (1),   shall   not   be
varied   by   any   subsequent   notification.     What   is
important to notice is that the castes or tribes have
to be specified in relation to a given State or  Union
Territory.   That means a given caste or tribe can be
a  Scheduled Caste or   a Scheduled  Tribe in  relation
to   the   State   or   Union   Territory   for   which   it   is
specified.     These   are   the   relevant   provisions   with
which we shall be concerned while dealing with the
grievance made in this petition.”
“ 16.       We   may   add   that   considerations   for
specifying   a   particular   caste   or   tribe   or   class   for
inclusion   in   the   list   of   Scheduled   Castes/Schedule
Tribes   or   backward   classes   in   a   given   State   would
depend   on   the   nature   and   extent   of   disadvantages
and social hardships suffered by that caste, tribe or

24
class   in   that   State  which   may   be   totally   non   est   in
another   State   to   which   persons   belonging   thereto
may   migrate.   Coincidentally   it   may   be   that   a   caste
or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is specified
in two States but the considerations on the basis of
which   they   have   been   specified   may   be   totally
different.   So   also   the   degree   of   disadvantages   of
various   elements   which   constitute   the   input   for
specification may also be totally different. Therefore,
merely because a given caste is specified in State A
as   a   Scheduled   Caste   does   not   necessarily   mean
that   if   there   be   another   caste   bearing   the   same
nomenclature in another State the person belonging
to   the   former   would   be   entitled   to   the   rights,
privileges   and   benefits   admissible   to   a   member   of
the   Scheduled   Caste   of   the   latter   State   "for   the
purposes   of   this   Constitution".   This   is   an   aspect
which   has   to   be   kept   in   mind   and   which   was   very
much in the minds of the Constitution­makers as is
evident   from   the   choice   of   language   of   Articles   341
and 342 of the Constitution. That is why in answer
to   a   question   by   Mr   Jaipal   Singh,   Dr   Ambedkar
answered as under:
"He   asked   me   another   question   and   it
was   this.   Supposing   a   member   of   a
Scheduled   Tribe   living   in   a   tribal   area
migrates to another part of the territory of
India,   which   is   outside   both   the
scheduled   area   and   the   tribal   area,   will
he   be   able   to   claim   from   the   local
Government, within whose jurisdiction he
may   be   residing   the   same   privileges
which he would be entitled to when he is
residing   within   the   scheduled   area   or
within   the   tribal   area?   It   is   a   difficult
question for  me to answer. If that matter
is   agitated   in   quarters   where   a   decision

25
on a matter  like this would lie, we would
certainly   be   able   to   give   some   answer   to
the   question   in   the   form   of   some   clause
in   this   Constitution.   But   so   far   as   the
present Constitution stands, a member of
a   Scheduled   Tribe   going   outside   the
scheduled   area   or   tribal   area   would
certainly not be entitled to carry with him
the   privileges   that   he   is   entitled   to   when
he   is   residing   in   a   scheduled   area   or   a
tribal   area.   So   far  as   I   can   see,   it   will   be
practicably   impossible   to   enforce   the
provisions   that   apply   to   tribal   areas   or
scheduled   areas,   in   areas   other   than
those which are covered by them.......”
Relying   on   this   statement   the   Constitution   Bench
ruled   that   the   petitioner   was   not   entitled   to
admission   to   the   medical   college   on   the   basis   that
he belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his
origin. ”
[8] The   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Action
Committee   on   Issue   of   Caste   Certificate   to   Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra
and Another (supra)   shall be applicable with full force to the
facts of the present case also.  The submission on behalf of the
appellant  ­ original  defendant  that the  said decision shall  not
be applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in that case
the   Court   was   considering   the   issue   with   respect   to

26
employment, education and in the present case dispute is with
respect to sale /sale of property has no substance and cannot
be accepted.   The reasoning given by this Court in the case of
Action   Committee   on   Issue   of   Caste   Certificate   to
Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in   the   State   of
Maharashtra and Another (supra)   are on interpretation and
on   a   plain   reading   of   Clause   I   of   Articles   341   and   342   of   the
Constitution   of   India,   which   are   referred   to   hereinabove.     We
see no reason to restrict the applicability of the decision of this
Court   in   the   case   of   Action   Committee   on   Issue   of   Caste
Certificate   to   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes   in
the   State   of   Maharashtra   and   Another   (supra)   only   with
respect to employment, education or the like and not to make
applicable   the   same   with   respect   to   purchase   and   sale   of   the
property in case of sale and purchase of the land belonging to
a Scheduled Caste person in the State of Rajasthan and when
the said land was allotted to the original land owner – Chunilal
as Scheduled Caste  landless person.

27
[9] At   this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the
subsequent decision in the case of   Ranjana Kumari (supra) ,
a   Three   Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   had   an   occasion   to
consider   the   same   issue.     Before   this   Court   the   appellant
belonged   to   Valmiki   Caste   (Scheduled   Caste   of   the   State   of
Punjab),   who   married   a   person   belonging   to   Valmiki   Caste   of
Uttarakhand migrated to that State.   It was found that in the
State   of   Uttarakhand   also   under   the   Presidential   order
‘Valmiki’   was   also   recognized   as   notified   Scheduled   Caste.
Even the State of Uttarakhand also issued a  certificate to the
appellant.     However,   the   State   of   Uttarakhand   denied   the
benefit,   which   may   be   available   to   the   Scheduled   Caste
belonging   to   State   of   Uttarakhand.     Thereafter   the   appellant
approached   the   High   Court.     The   High   Court   rejected   the
claim.   The decision of the High Court was carried before this
Court.     While   dismissing   the   Appeal,   it   is   observed   in
paragraph 4 as under:
“ 4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this
Court   in   Marri   Chandra   Shekar   Rao   Vs.   Dean,
Seth   G.S.   Medical   College   &   Ors.   and   Action

28
Committee   on   Issue   of   Caste   Certificate   to
Scheduled   Castes   &   Scheduled   Tribes   in   the
State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs. Union of India
& Anr.   have taken the view that merely because in
the   migrant   State   the   same   caste   is   recognized   as
Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be recognized
as   Scheduled   Caste   of   the   migrant   State.     The
issuance   of   a   caste   certificate   by   the   State   of
Uttarakhand,   as   in   the   present   case,   cannot   dilute
the rigours of the Constitution Bench Judgments in
Marri   Chandra   Shekar   Rao   (supra)   and   Action
Committee (supra). ”  
[10] In   view   of   the   above,   the   appellant   –   original
defendant   being   a   Scheduled   Caste   belonging   to   State   of
Punjab and being an ordinarily and permanent resident of the
State of Punjab cannot claim 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   given   to   original   allottee   as   Scheduled
Caste   landless   person,   and   therefore,   as   rightly   held   by   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   the   sale   transaction   in
favour   of   the   appellant   –   original   defendant   was   in   clear
breach   and   /   or   in   violation   of   Section   42   of   the   Rajasthan
Tenancy Act, 1955.

29
[11] Even   otherwise,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of
the   case,   the   sale   transaction   in   favour   of   the   appellant   ­
original defendant can be said to be in breach of Section 13 of
the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954.     It   is   required   to   be
noted   that   the   Board   of   Revenue   granted   the   benefit   of
provisions   of   Section   13A   of   the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,
1954   in   favour   of   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant   and   the
Board   permitted   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant   to   pay
compounding   fees   and   regularized   the   transaction.     However,
it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   when   the   Board   of   Revenue
granted   the   benefit   of   compounding   under   Section   13A(2),   an
order   of   ejection   of   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant   was
already   passed   against   him   and   Puran   Singh,   and   the
possession   was   already   handed   over   to   the   respondent   –
original   plaintiff   from   Puran   Singh,   who   was   found   to   be   in
actual physical possession of the land on 30.12.1980.  Section
13(A)(2)   of   the   Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954   would   be
applicable only in a case where an order of ejectment has been

30
passed, but a person against whom an order of ejectment has
been   passed   has   not   actually   been   ejected   from   the   land
transferred.     In   that   view   of   the   matter,   no   order   of
compounding   in   favour   of   the   appellant   ­   original   defendant
and   /or   even   Puran   Singh   could   have   been   passed   by   the
Board   of   Revenue   in   exercise   of   power   under   Section   13(A)(2)
of   the     Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954,   and   therefore,   also
the   order   passed   by   the   Board   of   Revenue   confirmed   by   the
learned Single Judge permitting compounding was contrary to
Section   13A(2)   of   the     Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954,   and
therefore,   also   the   land   transaction   in   question   is   hit   by
Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.  
[12] In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated
hereinabove,   the  land   transaction   in  favour   of  the   appellant   ­
original   defendant   was   in   breach   of   Section   13   of   the
Rajasthan   Colonization   Act,   1954   and   Section   42   of   the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which is rightly held to be void
by the Division Bench of the High Court.   We are in complete

31
agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench.   Under
the   circumstances,   the   present   Appeal   fails   and   the   same
deserves   to   be   dismissed   and   is   accordingly   dismissed.
However,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   there
shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………… J.
               (M. R. SHAH)
………………………………… J.
      (A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi, 
January 5, 2022.