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

Date of the Judgment: January 5, 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5933 of 2021
Judges: M. R. Shah, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.
Can a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state claim the same benefits in another state, particularly concerning land transactions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving land rights and the protections afforded to Scheduled Castes. The core issue revolved around whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in Punjab could claim the same status and benefits in Rajasthan, specifically concerning a land purchase. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna.

Case Background

The dispute concerns land in Dharamsinghwala village, Rajasthan, originally allotted to Chunilal, a Scheduled Caste landless person and father of the respondent, Jassa Ram. In 1972, Chunilal allegedly borrowed Rs. 5,000 from Puran Singh (a higher caste individual) and was fraudulently made to sign a sale deed in favor of Bhadar Ram, the appellant, who was a resident of Punjab. Chunilal filed a suit for ejectment against Puran Singh and Bhadar Ram, arguing the sale was void under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Chunilal, stating that the land was in Puran Singh’s possession and the sale deed violated the aforementioned laws. The possession of the land was handed over to the respondent, Jassa Ram, in pursuance of the decree passed by the trial court. However, the possession was found to be with Puran Singh and not with Bhadar Ram.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court initially decreed the suit in favor of Chunilal, stating the sale deed was in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, and Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. Bhadar Ram appealed to the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Board of Revenue allowed Bhadar Ram’s appeal, granting him the benefit of compounding under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. Jassa Ram then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by a single judge. The Division Bench of the High Court then allowed Jassa Ram’s appeal, setting aside the single judge’s decision, ruling that Bhadar Ram, being a resident of Punjab, could not claim Scheduled Caste benefits in Rajasthan. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court by Bhadar Ram.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around two key 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 in favor of a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste. The intent is to protect Scheduled Caste individuals within the state of Rajasthan. The court noted that the provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs to i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan.

  “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.”

• Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: This section regulates the transfer of land allotted to Scheduled Caste individuals. It requires prior permission for such transfers. The court also considered Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, which permits compounding and regularization of transactions executed without prior permission on deposit of compounding fees.

  “Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 before executing the sale between the members of Scheduled Caste.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Bhadar Ram):

• The primary argument was that the transaction was void due to the absence of prior permission required under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and that he was allegedly used by Puran Singh to overcome the bar imposed by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The respondent admitted that the appellant is a member of the Scheduled Caste.

• The appellant argued that the lack of a formal issue regarding his caste status in relation to Rajasthan prevented him from presenting adequate evidence, despite his family’s roots in Rajasthan.

• He contended that Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, which was inserted in 1983, allows for compounding and regularization of transactions without prior permission on payment of fees, which was done in his case.

• The appellant argued that merely having a residence in Punjab does not make him an ordinary resident of Punjab, relying on Section 20(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1950. He submitted that a further inquiry was needed to determine his residential status.

• He argued that the purchase of the property was from his own funds and should not be subjected to state reservation policies.

• The appellant contended that the respondent’s challenge to the 1972 sale in 1977 was mala fide and an abuse of process, especially since the consideration was retained, and he had been depositing compounding fees.

Respondent’s Arguments (Jassa Ram):

• The respondent argued that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court’s decision in Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., which held that a migrant cannot be recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the migrant state, even if the caste is recognized there.

• The respondent relied on the decision in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board, which reiterated the same principle.

• The respondent argued that the land was purchased by Puran Singh (a non-Scheduled Caste) in Bhadar Ram’s name, making it a breach of both Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

• The respondent emphasized that Bhadar Ram’s address was in Punjab in the sale deed and mutation records, and he admitted to being a resident of Punjab during cross-examination.

• The respondent argued that merely having land in Rajasthan does not make a person a resident of that state, and there was no evidence of Bhadar Ram’s birth in Rajasthan.

• The respondent also argued that Bhadar Ram was a benami holder for Puran Singh, who was not a member of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan, and that Puran Singh was found in possession of the land.

• The respondent further argued that the Board of Revenue could not have granted the benefit of compounding under Section 13A, as it is only applicable if the transferee was in possession, which was not the case here. The permission for compounding can only be given by the State Government and not the Board of Revenue. Also, the provisions under Section 13A could have been exercised up to 13.06.1987, whereas the Board exercised it on 25.04.1989, beyond the time limit.

Submissions Table

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 – 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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?

• Marri Chandra Shekar Rao vs. Dean, Geth G.S. Medical College and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 130: The Court followed this authority, reiterating that a person does not cease to belong to his caste by migration, but cannot claim Scheduled Caste benefits in the migrant state.
• 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: The Court followed this authority, holding that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot be deemed so in another state upon migration.
• Ranjana Kumari vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.: The Court relied on this authority, which 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 relied on this authority, which reiterated the principle that a person cannot claim Scheduled Caste benefits in a state where they are not a permanent resident.
• Section 20(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: The Court interpreted this provision to define ‘ordinarily resident’ and clarified that owning property does not automatically confer residency.
• Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955: The Court interpreted this provision to restrict the sale of land by a member of a Scheduled Caste to a non-member within the state of Rajasthan.
• Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: The Court interpreted this provision to regulate the transfer of land allotted to Scheduled Caste individuals, requiring prior permission.
• Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954: The Court interpreted this provision to allow for compounding and regularization of transactions without prior permission on deposit of compounding fees, but held that it was not applicable to the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Constitutional Interpretation: The Court emphasized the interpretation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, which specify that Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are to be notified in relation to a particular state. This means that a person’s Scheduled Caste status is specific to their state of origin and does not automatically transfer to another state upon migration. The court observed that social conditions 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.

• Precedent: The Court heavily relied on previous judgments, particularly Marri Chandra Shekar Rao, Action Committee, Ranjana Kumari, and Bir Singh, which consistently held that a person cannot claim Scheduled Caste benefits in a state where they are not a permanent resident.

• Residential Status: The Court determined that Bhadar Ram was an ordinary resident of Punjab based on the evidence, including his address in the sale deed and mutation records, and his admission in cross-examination. The Court clarified that mere ownership of land in Rajasthan does not make a person a resident of that state.

• Violation of Law: The Court found that the land transaction was in clear violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, as it involved the transfer of land from a Scheduled Caste member to a person who was not a Scheduled Caste member of Rajasthan. The transaction also violated Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954.

• Illegal Compounding: The Court held that the Board of Revenue’s decision to allow compounding under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954, was illegal. The benefit of compounding can only be given if the transferee is in possession, which was not the case here.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations or minority opinions.

The Supreme Court held that the land transaction in favor of the appellant 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.

“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.”

“Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bhadar Ram vs. Jassa Ram reaffirms the principle that Scheduled Caste status is state-specific and does not extend to other states upon migration. This decision has significant implications for land transactions and the protections afforded to Scheduled Castes. The Court’s focus on constitutional interpretation, precedent, and the specific legal provisions of Rajasthan underscores the importance of adhering to state-specific regulations in land matters. The judgment also clarifies that mere ownership of land in a state does not automatically confer residency, and that the benefit of compounding under Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 is contingent on the transferee being in possession of the land. The decision emphasizes the need to protect the rights of Scheduled Caste individuals within their respective states and to prevent the misuse of these protections by individuals from other states. The Supreme Court’s ruling ensures that the protections meant for Scheduled Castes within a state are not diluted by individuals who are not permanent residents of that state. This case sets a clear precedent for future disputes involving land transfers and the application of Scheduled Caste protections across state lines.