Revenue Officers Cannot Adjudicate Caste Status For Removing Tribal Land Protections: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that revenue authorities cannot adjudicate or determine the caste or tribe status of a person while exercising powers under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court observed that the determination of Scheduled Tribe status lies exclusively with the Caste Scrutiny Committee, and a revenue officer cannot deprive a person or their family of the statutory protection available to Scheduled Tribes by recording a finding on caste status.

Justice Arun R. Pedneker was hearing two writ petitions challenging the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Revenue Minister setting aside a 1989 order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO had initiated suo motu proceedings under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to examine whether certain agricultural land was protected tribal land. The SDO concluded that Babu Nana Jadhav belonged to the "Sonkoli" community, which is not a Scheduled Tribe, and held that the land was not affected by Sections 36 and 36A. More than three decades later, the legal heirs challenged the order, and the delay was condoned by the Additional Commissioner, who also set aside the SDO's order. The Revenue Minister affirmed both orders.

The petitioner contended that the authorities had wrongly condoned an unexplained delay of 34 years and that the SDO had validly exercised jurisdiction after conducting an enquiry in which the wife and daughter of Babu Jadhav had stated that they belonged to the Sonkoli community.

The Court held that proceedings under Sections 36 and 36A can be initiated only where there is material indicating a transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal attracting the statutory restrictions. It found that there was no transfer document before the SDO when the suo motu proceedings were initiated and that Babu Nana Jadhav had already passed away before the proceedings culminated.

The Court further observed that the SDO proceeded to determine the caste status of Babu Jadhav and his family despite lacking jurisdiction to do so. The Court reiterated that the question of whether a person belongs to a Scheduled Tribe can be determined only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and that, unless such claim is validated by the Committee, no authority can decide the issue.

The Court held that the SDO's declaration that Babu Jadhav belonged to the Sonkoli community had serious consequences, as it deprived the family of the statutory protection available under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

The Court further observed that where an order is void and affects substantive rights, the authorities were justified in adopting a liberal approach while condoning the delay.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed both writ petitions and upheld the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the Revenue Minister condoning the delay and setting aside the SDO's order.

Case Title: Debashish Devnarayan Ghosh v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition Nos. 9010 and 9011 of 2025]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 323

Click Here To Read/Download Order