Supreme Court Upholds Restrictions on Land Transfers to Scheduled Castes from Other States: Bhadar Ram vs Jassa Ram (2022)

Case Background

The case revolves around a land dispute in Dharamsinghwala village, Rajasthan. The land was originally allotted to Chunilal, a Scheduled Caste landless person and the father of the respondent, Jassa Ram. In 1972, Chunilal allegedly borrowed Rs. 5,000 from Puran Singh, a member of a higher caste, who fraudulently had Chunilal sign a sale deed in favor of Bhadar Ram, the appellant, who was a resident of Punjab and also a member of the Scheduled Caste in Punjab.

Chunilal filed a suit for ejectment against Puran Singh and Bhadar Ram, arguing that the sale deed was void under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of Chunilal, finding that Puran Singh, a non-Scheduled Caste person, was in possession of the land, and the sale deed was in violation of the aforementioned laws. The possession of the land was handed over to Chunilal. Bhadar Ram appealed this decision, but the Revenue Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. However, the Board of Revenue later allowed Bhadar Ram’s appeal, giving him the benefit of compounding under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, on payment of fees. Jassa Ram, Chunilal’s son, then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was initially dismissed by a single judge but was later allowed by a Division Bench, which set aside the compounding order, stating that Bhadar Ram, being a resident of Punjab, could not claim Scheduled Caste benefits in Rajasthan.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially ruled in favor of Chunilal, declaring the sale deed void and ordering the eviction of Puran Singh, who was found to be in possession of the land. The Revenue Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision. However, the Board of Revenue reversed this, granting Bhadar Ram the benefit of compounding under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. This decision was challenged in the High Court, where a single judge initially dismissed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned the single judge’s decision, holding that Bhadar Ram, being a resident of Punjab, could not claim Scheduled Caste benefits in Rajasthan, and thus the sale was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

Legal Framework

The core legal issues in this case revolve around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: This section restricts the sale, gift, or bequest of land by a member of a Scheduled Caste to a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste. The intent is to protect Scheduled Caste landholders from exploitation.
• Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: This section regulates the transfer of land allotted to Scheduled Caste persons. It requires prior permission for such transfers.
• Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: This section, introduced by a 1983 amendment, permits the compounding and regularization of transactions executed without prior permission under Section 13, upon payment of compounding fees.
• Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India: These articles empower the President to specify the castes or tribes which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State or Union Territory.
• Section 20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: This section defines ‘ordinarily resident’ for the purpose of electoral rolls, stating that owning or possessing a dwelling house does not automatically qualify a person as an ordinary resident.

These legal provisions are designed to protect the interests of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, particularly in matters of land ownership, and to prevent exploitation by members of other communities. The Supreme Court’s judgment interprets these provisions in the context of inter-state migration and the benefits available to Scheduled Castes in different states.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Bhadar Ram):

• The primary argument of the appellant was that the transaction was void due to the absence of prior permission under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and that Puran Singh used him to overcome the restrictions imposed by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It was contended that the respondent admitted that the appellant was a member of the Scheduled Caste.
• The appellant argued that the insertion of Section 13A in the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, after the 1983 amendment, allowed for the compounding and regularization of transactions made without the required permission, which was correctly done by the Board of Revenue.
• The appellant contended that merely residing in Punjab does not make him an ordinary resident of Punjab, and further inquiry was required to determine his residential status. The appellant relied on Section 20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to argue that owning a house does not determine residency.
• The appellant argued that the judgment in 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] only discussed the status of a person who migrated to another state and did not address a situation where a person returns to their state of origin.
• The appellant also argued that the purchase of property is a free act and does not require state reservation. He contended that he should not be denied the benefits of land purchased with his own money.
• The appellant argued that the respondent’s questioning of the 1972 sale in 1977 was mala fide and an abuse of the process of law. He stated that the respondent retained the consideration for the sale, and the appellant had been depositing compounding fees.

Respondent’s Arguments (Jassa Ram):

• The respondent argued that the issue of whether a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste in Punjab can claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan was covered by the decision in Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8425/2013).
• The respondent relied on the judgments in 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 [(1994) 5 SCC 244], arguing that a migrant cannot be recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the migrant state.
• The respondent argued that the transaction was in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, because the appellant was a resident of Punjab and not Rajasthan. The respondent cited Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board [(2018) 10 SCC 312] to support this claim.
• The respondent contended that the land was purchased by Puran Singh, a non-Scheduled Caste person, in the name of Bhadar Ram, and the land was always in the possession of Puran Singh, making the sale in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.
• The respondent argued that the benefit of compounding under Section 13A could only be given if the transferee was in possession, which was not the case with the appellant. Also, the compounding permission could only be given by the State Government and not the Board of Revenue and also that the time limit for exercising the provisions under Section 13A had expired.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the land transaction in favor of the appellant, Bhadar Ram, was illegal and in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, considering he belonged to a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the following authorities:

• Marri Chandra Shekar Rao vs. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and Others [(1990) 3 SCC 130]: The Court reiterated the principle that while a person’s caste does not change with migration, the benefits of being a Scheduled Caste are limited to the state of origin.
• Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another [(1994) 5 SCC 244]: The Court applied the principle that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot claim the same benefits in another state upon migration.
• Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.8425/2013): The Court reiterated that a migrant cannot be recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the migrant state.
• Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board [(2018) 10 SCC 312]: The Court reaffirmed that Scheduled Caste status is state-specific.
• Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: The Court interpreted this section to restrict the transfer of land from a Scheduled Caste member to a non-Scheduled Caste member, emphasizing the protection of Scheduled Caste landholders within the state.
• Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: The Court interpreted this section to regulate the transfer of land allotted to Scheduled Caste persons and held that the transaction was in violation of this section as the possession was not with the appellant.
• Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: The Court held that this section was not applicable as the possession was not with the appellant.
• Section 20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: The Court used this section to interpret the term ‘ordinarily resident’ and held that owning a house does not automatically qualify a person as an ordinary resident.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following considerations:

• Constitutional Provisions and Precedents: The Court emphasized the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, as well as the precedents set in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao, Action Committee, Ranjana Kumari and Bir Singh. These authorities establish that Scheduled Caste status is state-specific, and a person cannot claim the benefits of being a Scheduled Caste in a state where they are not a permanent resident.
• Protection of Scheduled Caste Landholders: The Court underscored the purpose of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which is to protect Scheduled Caste landholders from exploitation. Allowing a person from another state to claim Scheduled Caste benefits would undermine this protection.
• Interpretation of ‘Ordinarily Resident’: The Court clarified that owning property in a state does not automatically qualify a person as an ‘ordinarily resident’ of that state, as per Section 20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• Violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: The Court found that the transaction was in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 as the possession was not with the appellant.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legal provisions and a consistent application of the principles laid down in previous judgments. The Court aimed to uphold the constitutional safeguards for Scheduled Castes and prevent the dilution of these safeguards through inter-state migration.

Fact:Law Ratio

Key Takeaways

• State-Specific Scheduled Caste Status: A person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot automatically claim the same benefits in another state, especially in matters of land ownership.
• Protection of Local Scheduled Castes: The restrictions on land transfers under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, are designed to protect the interests of Scheduled Caste landholders within the state.
• Definition of ‘Ordinarily Resident’: Owning property in a state does not automatically qualify a person as an ‘ordinarily resident’ of that state for the purpose of availing Scheduled Caste benefits.
• Compounding of Transactions: The benefit of compounding under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, is not applicable if the transferee is not in possession of the land.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot claim the same benefits in another state, particularly in matters of land ownership. This judgment reinforces the state-specific nature of Scheduled Caste status as established in previous cases like Marri Chandra Shekar Rao, Action Committee and Ranjana Kumari. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies the applicability of these principles in the context of land transactions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the land transaction in favor of Bhadar Ram was illegal. The court reaffirmed that Scheduled Caste status is state-specific and that a person cannot claim the benefits of being a Scheduled Caste in a state where they are not a permanent resident. The court also held that the benefit of compounding under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, was not applicable in this case. This judgment emphasizes the importance of protecting the rights of Scheduled Caste landholders and preventing the exploitation of their land by outsiders.