BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRS. versus JASSA RAM & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 394 · Decided: 05-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
394
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 394
394
BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRs.
v.
JASSA RAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2021)
JANUARY 05, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – s.42 – Land transaction –
Legality –Land was allotted to ‘C’, the father of respondent, as a
Scheduled Caste landless person – C borrowed a sum from one ‘P’
who allegedly, fraudulently, made ‘C’ to sign sale deed in favor of
appellant , a resident of Punjab – ‘C’ filed suit for ejectment against
‘P’ and appellant – Trial court held that the land was in possession
of ‘P’ who was not Scheduled Caste person and the sale deed was
in violation of s.13 of Rajasthan Colonization Act, as well as in
breach of s.42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act, and therefore, ‘P’ was
liable to be evicted – Aggrieved by the order/ decree of trial court,
appellant filed appeal before Revenue Appellate Tribunal which
was dismissed – Further appeal of appellant before Board of Revenue
was allowed, which gave benefit of compounding to appellant on
payment of compounding fees u/s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization
Act – Respondent filed writ petition which was dismissed by a Single
Judge of High Court – On appeal, Division Bench set aside the
judgment of Single Judge holding that appellant, being resident
and a Scheduled caste belonging to Punjab, could not take benefit
of his being Scheduled caste – Held: 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 – Appellant 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 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 sale transaction in favour of
appellant was in clear breach and/or in violation of s.42 of the
Rajasthan Tenancy Act – Even otherwise, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the sale transaction in favour of appellant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
395
can be said to be in breach of s.13 of the Rajasthan Colonization
Act – Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 – s.13.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. 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. 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 belonging to the very State he
belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan.
[Paras 6.1 and 7][404-E, G-H; 405-A]
2.1. In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State
of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court 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. The
decision of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra
and Another is applicable with full force to the facts of the present
case also. The submission on behalf of the appellant 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
employment, education and in the present case dispute is with
respect to sale /sale of property has no substance. There is no
reason to restrict the applicability of the said decision 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 as Scheduled
Caste landless person. [Paras 7.1 and 8][406-C-F; 408-C-G]
BHADAR RAM (D) THR. LRs. v. JASSA RAM

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.