LexREVENUE OFFICER & ORS. versus PRAFULLA KUMAR PATI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A REVENUE OFFICER & ORS. v. PRAFULLA KUMAR PAT! & ORS. JANUARY 17, 1990 B [B.C. RAY AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960: Sections 22 and 23-Land-Sale by a Scheduled Caste in favour of non-Scheduled Caste-Requisite permission from Revenue Officer not obtained-Validity of. Constitution of India, 1950: Article 341-The Constitution C Scheduled Castesorder, 1950-Schedule-Part Xlll-ltem No. 26- 'Rajaka' Caste-Whether 'Scheduled Caste' Caste not specified in the D Lisi-Effect of-Duty of Court to enquire. ,.. Words and Phrases: 'Rajaka'-Meaning of. Respondent No. 2, a scheduled caste, filed a case for restoration of lands sold to respondent NC1s. 1, 3 and 4, non scheduled castes, on the ground that the sale was in violation of section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 as the requisite permission of the Revenue Officer J._ was not obtained. In the sale deed the transferor-Respondent was ~ E described as 'Rajaka' while in the caste certificate he was mentioned as 'Dhoba'. The Revenue Officer rejected the case. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal which was allowed by the Addi- tional District Magistrate. Against the order of Additional Distric\ Magistrate a revision was preferred by respondent No. 1 which was F dismissed by the Special Officer, Land Reforms by holding that merely because the word 'Rajaka' does not find mention in the Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 does not exclucle it from the purview of such an order. In the connected app,,al respondent No. 5 filed a case for restora- tion of land sold to respondent No. l which was allowed by the Revenue G Officer. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the Additional District Magistrate. A Revision preferred by Respondent No. l was also dismissed by the Special Officer Land Reforms. Respondent No. 1 filed writ petitio)lS in the High Court which quashed the orders made by the Special Officer, holding that the H Revenue Authorities committed a serious eiror of law in holding that 88 \ I ) - REVENUE OFFICER v. P.K. PAT! 89 'Rajaka' caste was included within the notified caste/community of A 'Dhoba'. In these appeals it was contended on behalf of transferee-res- pondents that the Caste 'Rajaka' mentioned in the sale deeds cannot be taken to be synonym of caste 'Dhoba' mentioned in Item 26 of the List in Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. B Allowing the appeals, this Court, HELD: I. Though the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 i.e. the trans- ferors mentioned in the deeds of transfer their caste as 'Rajaka' there is no such caste mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In such circumstances, it. is necessary and also incumbent on the Court to consider as to what caste they belong to. [96B I B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [1965] l S.C.R. 316, followed. 2. 'Rajaka' is the literal synonym for the word 'Dhoba' and ac- cording to the Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasakosh a which is a recognised authority, the definition of 'Dhoba' is Rajaka-washerman. Therefore the submission that the caste 'Rajaka' is differeni from caste 'Dhoba' is not at all sustainable. [96AI 3. In the record of rights as well as the various certificates issued by the revenue authorities and the local M.L.As the transferors have been described as belonging to 'Dhoba' community. The irresistible conclusion that follows is that the respondent-transferors belong to 'Dhoba' caste which is one of the Scheduled Caste ln the State of c D E Orissa. l96H, 97 AJ F 3.1 Therefore the transfers made by respondent Nos . 2 and 5 in favour of respondent No. 1, who admittedly belongs to Brabmin caste, are hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 in as much as the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer had not been obtained to the alleged transfers. [95C] G [The transferee-respondents directed to restore the lands in question to the possession of the transferor-respondents forthwith.] [97C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1052-53 of 1990. H 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1986 of the Orissa High Court in OJC. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983. B c ' A.K. Panda for the Appellants. Kundan Lal Jagga and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents. 1be following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER Special leave granted. Agruments heard. These two appeals on special leave arise out of the common jud
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.