M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 941 · Decided: 08-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 941 : 2023 INSC 1057
941
CASE DETAILS
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. 
LTD. AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017)
DECEMBER 08, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Cancellation of caste certiﬁ cate issued to 
respondent No.15.
The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Caste certiﬁ cate issued 
in favour of respondent No.15, inter-related with the sale transactions 
of the land – Cancellation of Caste certiﬁ cate:
Held: Sale deeds in question were executed by late father of 
respondent No. 15 – There is nothing produced on record to show that late 
father of respondent No. 15 was ever issued any certiﬁ cate showing him 
belonging to Scheduled Tribe community – The sale deeds in question 
were registered on 30.08.1983 – It shows that on the basis of a certiﬁ cate, 
which was issued subsequently in favour of respondent No. 15, he sought 
to challenge one of the various sale deeds executed by his late father during 
his life time claiming that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe community 
and the sale transaction was in violation of ss.14B,14C of the 1955 Act – 
Respondent No. 15’s father was engaged as a driver by the Corporation on 
01.01.1973 – His services were terminated w.e.f. 30.11.1987 – As per the 
record with his employer, he belonged to general category – Late father 
of respondent No.15, never claimed himself to be a person belonging to 
Scheduled Tribe community – During his life time, he had sold about ten 
acres of land between 1980 and 1983 including the sale deed in question 
– None of those sale transactions have been challenged by him during his 
life time or by respondents No. 15 and 16, after his death claiming that 
the father belonged to Scheduled Tribe community – In fact, there was 
942 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
no certiﬁ cate issued to that extent in his favour – It was the father who 
had executed the sale deeds – It also came on record that respondent No. 
15 had executed the sale deeds I-1039 dated 01.03.2000 and I-575 dated 
07.02.2001 - Those were also executed without seeking any permission 
from any authority – There is no challenge to that – Earlier to that, a 
complaint was ﬁ led for cancellation of the sale deed in question which 
was closed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 29.08.2000 holding 
that respondent No. 15 did not belong to Scheduled Tribe community, 
as was even the status mentioned in two aﬃ  davits dated 06.07.2000 and 
02.08.2000 sworn by him before Notary Public and Executive Magistrate, 
respectively – Even at the time of death of father of respondent No. 15, 
in the year 1991, respondent No. 15 was more than 18 years of age – The 
sale deeds in question in isolation were sought to be challenged only in 
the year 2004, even though the certiﬁ cate of Scheduled Tribe community 
was issued in favour of respondent No. 15 in the year 1993 – No merit in 
the claim of respondent No. 15 – Impugned judgment passed by the High 
Court set aside – West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes 
(Identiﬁ cation) Act, 1994 – s.8A. [Paras 29, 39-41]
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2015 of the High Court of 
Calcutta in MAT No.2117 of 2014.
Appearances:
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Nipun 
Katyal, Shashank Shekhar, Aman Sharma, Nadeem Afroz, Aditya Sidhra, 
Ms. Kismat Chauhan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Ankit Acharya, 
Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, Sunil Fernandes, Srisatya Mohanty, Shreyas Awasthi, 
Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for the 
Respondents.
943
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
1. The judgment1 of the Division Bench of High Court2 is under 
challenge in the present appeal. Vide aforesaid judgment, the order3 passed 
by the Single Judge was upheld.
2. The issue in the present appeal pertains to cancellation of caste 
certiﬁ cate issued to respondent No. 15.
SET OF FACTS
3. Late-Ramanand Baraik sold 2.11 acres of land vide registered sale 
deeds dated 30.08.1983 to one Sanjay Gupta and two others. It was mutated 
in the name of the purchasers. Between 1980 and 1983, late-Ramanand 
Baraik sold more than ten acres of land to diﬀ erent persons. He was working 
as a driver wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.