Person belonging to SC-ST category in a particular state cannot claim benefits in other states after migrating to them : Supreme Court
The quota benefits that are given to SC-ST persons are available to that person in that state only, the person cannot exercise those benefits in some other states as this goes against the basic object of enacting this provision and in the present case this provision existed under section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 that has been further elaborated upon by Justice M R Shah and Justice A S Bopanna in the case of BHADAR RAM V. JASSA RAM [CIVIL APPEAL No. 5933 OF 2021] In the present case the purchaser of a land belonged to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and he entered into a sale of his land in the State of Rajasthan against which he seeks to claim benefit under section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955. The issue before Supreme Court was that should a person who belongs to Schedule Caste in some other state be given the same benefit under section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1954 or not. The Supreme Court in this case held that even though this subject matter is “res integra” they ruled any person not belonging to scheduled caste in that state should not be given the benefit of section 42 of the act provided the land is given to a schedule caste landless person. The Supreme Court, hence agreeing with the decision of the Rajasthan High Court held that considering the scheduled caste resident belonged to Punjab and was not given that piece of land as a landless, this is not a violation of section 42 of Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The court further held that every act is enacted with a purpose and has an object that has to be fulfilled, in the present judgement there was only a clarification given that stopped misusing the provisions of tenancy act. Any land given to a schedule caste person is not only for monetary gain but also as a resource that he may use to multiply his resources, this is not a freebie given to him and it must not be disposed for money. A person belonging to a state and residing there who is applying the bar on transferring of property in another state is frivolous because he would not have been given that land as a landless schedule caste and as seen in this judgement such benefits are not even given to him as a result of him migrating to that state as Justice MR Shah also rightly observed that “looking at 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” which in the said case is Rajasthan but the defendant being a scheduled caste belonging to Punjab and a permanent resident of that state cannot claim the benefit.  
2022 LIVELAW10 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.2011 passed by Division Bench of High Court has allowed the said Appeal 2022 LIVELAW10 preferred by the respondent herein original plaintiff the village Dharamsinghwala Tehsil Sadulshahar District Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan. The said land was allotted to one respondent original plaintiff in the year 1972 the said the sale deed in favour of the appellant herein original 2022 LIVELAW10 Colonization Act 1954. The said suit came to be decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated Singh who was not a Scheduled Caste person and that the sale deed is in violation of Section 13 of the Rajasthan the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 and therefore the said Puran Singh is liable to be evicted. As per the case of the learned trial Court. The possession was found to be with dissatisfied with the judgment and order decree passed by 2022 LIVELAW10 original defendant filed the Appeal before the Board of Revenue which came to be allowed vide order dated Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Board of Revenue the respondent original dismissed the said Writ Petition vide judgment and order dated 15.09.1999. The respondent original plaintiff judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge 2022 LIVELAW10 the resident and Scheduled Caste belonging to the State of Punjab he could not have taken the benefit of his being Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the of the High Court the appellant ­ original defendant purchaser of the land in question has preferred the present Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2022 LIVELAW10 sale between the members of Scheduled Caste and that the appellant original defendant has been allegedly used by Rajasthan Tenancy Act. It is submitted that thus the respondent original plaintiff admitted that the appellant original defendant is the Member of Scheduled Caste and there was never a proper formal issue framed qua the ordinary status of the appellant original defendant for adequate evidence could not be presented though the It is submitted that after amendment of 1983 1954 which permits compounding and regularization of the transaction executed without the permission as required 2022 LIVELAW10 is submitted that as submitted hereinabove the main thrust Rajasthan Colonization Act 1954. It is submitted that only original plaintiff shifted the focus to Section 42 of the not make him an ordinarily resident of Punjab. Reliance is placed on Section 20(1) of the Representation of People Act aspect is was required before residential status is finally 2022 LIVELAW10 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the of the Action Committee on the issue of caste certificate to Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another is concerned it is not anywhere discussed a situation where a person having and at that time the issue of Scheduled Caste status being even the said decision also only discuses Scheduled Caste 2022 LIVELAW10 out of one’s own fund i.e. for lawful consideration from other limitation and is essentially a free act determined in open market regulated only to the extent of its mode of execution by law and has to be looked as such. It is submitted that the appellant original defendant therefore plaintiff cannot be permitted to question 1972 sale in 1977 itself goes to show mala fides of the respondent original plaintiff and abuse of process of law thereafter to deny appellant original defendant his rightful land. It is submitted that the consideration received has been retained 2022 LIVELAW10 appellant original defendant has been depositing compounding fees in terms of Section 13A of the Rajasthan Colonization Act 1954 and therefore he should not be denied the present Appeal and quash and set aside the impugned The present Appeal is vehemently opposed by Ms Christi Jain learned counsel appearing on behalf of the is a member of Scheduled Caste in Punjab where he is residing can claim the benefit of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan in relation to Section 42 of the Rajasthan State of Uttarakhand & Ors. in Civil Appeal 2022 LIVELAW10 No.8425 2013. It is submitted that after considering two Shekar Rao Vs. Dean Geth G.S. Medical College and Others 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on Issue is held that merely because in the migrant State the same recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. It is submitted that therefore applying the law laid down by this State of Punjab and being a member of Scheduled Caste in State of Punjab cannot claim benefit of Scheduled Caste in Rajasthan and therefore the transaction between the 2022 LIVELAW10 Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board 10 SCC 312 10 submitted that even otherwise the appellant original submitted that in the bainama his address is shown as Village Burajwala Tehsil Fajilka District Firozpur Punjab and he is resident of Punjab. It is submitted that in the In the cross examination he has submitted that he was was in fact a resident of Rajasthan and had migrated to It is submitted that the appellant original defendant claims to be a resident of Rajasthan only on the ground that his grandfather had land in Rajasthan. It is 2022 LIVELAW10 land was found to be in possession of Puran Singh. The possession is found to be with Puran Singh when the original plaintiff in pursuance to the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that therefore the sale It is submitted that even otherwise the Board of Revenue could not have given the benefit of compounding the transferee was in possession. In the present case the transferee appellant was not in possession and therefore 2022 LIVELAW10 appellant original defendant. The permission of up to 13.06.1987 whereas Board has exercised it on Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The short question which is Act 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act 2022 LIVELAW10 It is not in dispute that the land in question is was allotted to one Chunilal father of the respondent original plaintiff being a Scheduled Caste landless person According to the respondent original plaintiff the said said Puran Singh fraudulently made Chunilal to sign a sale deed in favour of the appellant herein Bhadar Ram a resident of Punjab. Thus according to the respondent original plaintiff in effect the sale was in favour of the said executed in favour of the appellant herein Bhadar Ram throughout the land was in possession of the said Puran the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court when the possession was handed over to the respondent 2022 LIVELAW10 2022 LIVELAW10 he can be said to be the permanent resident of State of purchaser of the land in question situated in the State of Rajasthan it is to be noted that in bainama his address is shown as Village Burajwala Tehsil Fajilka District Firozpur that of Punjab. In the cross examination he has admitted that he was a resident of Punjab. However according to the to be an ordinarily resident of State of Rajasthan. The 2022 LIVELAW10 ‘Ordinarily Resident’ has been defined under the Representation of the People Act 1950. As per Section 20(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1950 ‘ordinarily said that the appellant original defendant is an ordinarily Now whether the sale transaction in favour of the Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act 1955 is concerned it Act 1955 there is a restriction on sale gift or bequest by 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 2022 LIVELAW10 of Punjab whether the sale transaction in favour of the now not res integra. In the case of Marri Chandra Shekar “10. It has however to be borne in mind that a man does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a better or more socially free and and handicaps suffered by belonging to a socially disadvantageous community do not continue and girl gets full scope to flourish. These however are has to be given to a certain segment of socially disadvantaged community and for how long to become equal with others is a matter of delicate or community should cause detriment or discontentment to other community or part of community or section. Scheduled Castes and to the extent they are entitled in order to become equal with others. But equally those who go to 2022 LIVELAW10 areas. In other words Scheduled Castes and necessary protection as balanced between other communities. But equally the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes say of Maharashtra in the instant case do require protection in the State of Maharashtra which will have to be in balance to other communities. This must be the basic approach to the problem. If one bears this basic approach in mind then the determination of the controversy in the instant case does not become that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in some the facilities for development and growth and therefore in suffered and are in the state of underdevelopment to have reservations or protection in their favour so that they can compete on equal terms with the more advantageous or developed sections of the community a particular caste who has suffered more in a particular State might be given 2022 LIVELAW10 the State of Maharashtra and Another after considering the decision of this Court in the case of Marri 2022 LIVELAW10 341 and 342 it is manifest that the power of the which shall for the purposes of the Constitution be in relation to a State or a Union Territory as the case may be. Once a notification is issued under clause of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution Parliament can by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes specified in the notification any notification issued under clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification. What is to the State or Union Territory for which it is specified. These are the relevant provisions with “16. We may add that considerations for specifying a particular caste or tribe or class for 2022 LIVELAW10 another State to which persons belonging thereto which they have been specified may be totally different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for as a Scheduled Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another caste bearing the same to the former would be entitled to the rights privileges and benefits admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State "for the purposes of this Constitution". This is an aspect to a question by Mr Jaipal Singh Dr Ambedkar He asked me another question and it was this. Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a tribal area India which is outside both the scheduled area and the tribal area will he be able to claim from the local may be residing the same privileges residing within the scheduled area or within the tribal area It is a difficult is agitated in quarters where a decision 2022 LIVELAW10 in this Constitution. But so far as the a Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or tribal area would he is residing in a scheduled area or a practicably impossible to enforce the provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas in areas other than Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to The decision of this Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled the Court was considering the issue with respect to 2022 LIVELAW10 Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Constitution of India which are referred to hereinabove. We Court in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste the State of Maharashtra and Another only with 2022 LIVELAW10 a Three Judge Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the same issue. Before this Court the appellant belonged to Valmiki Caste 10 Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. The issuance of a caste certificate by the State of Uttarakhand as in the present case cannot dilute Marri Chandra Shekar Rao and Action In view of the above the appellant original defendant being a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of land belonging to a Scheduled Caste person of State of Caste landless person and therefore as rightly held by the Division Bench of the High Court the sale transaction in favour of the appellant original defendant was in clear breach and or in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan 2022 LIVELAW10 Even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case the sale transaction in favour of the appellant ­ the Rajasthan Colonization Act 1954. It is required to be noted that the Board of Revenue granted the benefit of Board permitted the appellant ­ original defendant to pay compounding fees and regularized the transaction. However it is required to be noted that when the Board of Revenue order of ejection of the appellant ­ original defendant was already passed against him and Puran Singh and the possession was already handed over to the respondent original plaintiff from Puran Singh who was found to be in 13(A)(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act 1954 would be 2022 LIVELAW10 been passed has not actually been ejected from the land transferred. In that view of the matter no order of compounding in favour of the appellant ­ original defendant and or even Puran Singh could have been passed by the of the Rajasthan Colonization Act 1954 and therefore also Section 13A(2) of the Rajasthan Colonization Act 1954 and therefore also the land transaction in question is hit by In view of the above and for the reasons stated original defendant 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 2022 LIVELAW10 the circumstances the present Appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed However in the facts and circumstances of the case there