Lack Of Documents Not Enough To Reject Caste Claim; Burden Of Proof On Authorities Who Deny ST Status: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set-aside a government order whereby an individual was rejected Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, holding that the burden of proving that an individual does not belong to the ST category lies on the authority who disputes it.In the present case, the petitioner belonged to Konda Kapu caste (a listed ST community under Presidential Order, 1950) and his status was reflected in his school records, revenue documents, and Permanent Caste Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer. However, in 2001, the petitioner's university received an allegation petition claiming that he does not belong to Konda Kapu community. The matter was enquired into by the Tribal Welfare Department, which revealed that he and his family members do not belong to the community, but belonged to Kapu (OC). This prompted the petitioner to file a writ before the High Court. The Court directed the District Collector (Respondent 2) to hold inquiry as to the social status of the petitioner, who further referred the matter to the District Level Scrutiny Committee headed by the Joint Collector (Respondent 3). The Committee concluded that the petitioner does not belong to the Konda Kapu community, and in 2005, Respondent 2 cancelled his caste certificate. An appeal before the State Government's Welfare Department (Respondent 1) was also dismissed in 2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the decision before the High Court.The respondent authorities contended that caste claim was denied primarily on the ground that the petitioner was given several opportunities to attend inquiries and submit evidence, but failed to do so. However, Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy rejected the claim and observed,“Mere non adducing documentary evidence on behalf of petitioner during inquiry either before the Committee or 2nd respondent, is not a ground to reject the caste claim of the petitioner. The burden of demonstrating that a candidate does not belong to the Scheduled Tribe community is on the authority, who disputes the social status.”BackgroundIn his challenge to the proceedings, the petitioner contended that he and his family historically belonged to Konda Kapu community, as demonstrated by his school certificates, tax receipts, revenue records, caste certificates and land proceedings. He submitted that children legally derive social status of the father, and that respondent authorities had acted erroneously by ignoring documents demonstrating that his father and paternal grandmother were treated as tribals. He further argued that the Committee report was not furnished to him and the authorities wrongly relied on old land records of 1938 and ignored the supporting evidence provided by him. This, he alleged, constituted a violation of principles of natural justice.In contrast, the State authorities, relying on death extracts of petitioner's paternal relatives, argued that he belonged to Kapu community and submitted that mere residence and possession of landed properties in a Scheduled Tribe area does not confer tribal status. They also submitted that genealogical patterns revealed that his paternal relatives, including his father, had inter-married with Kapu community, thereby establishing that he does not belong to Konda Kapu community.The Court referred to LTRP proceedings of 1966 and 1971 involving the petitioner's grandmother, where it was held she was a tribal and belonged to Konda Kapu community; and to proceedings of 2004, involving his father, where it was reaffirmed that they were tribals in possession of Government Land. Reaffirming that children get the social status of their father, the Court noted that the petitioner shall acquire the social status of his father, i.e of Konda Kapu. The Single Judge held,“… when the documents adduced by the petitioner clearly establish that the petitioner's father and her paternal grandmother were identified as tribals as Konda Kapu (ST) community, and the petitioner, being the son of one Benna Swamy, who is respondent in LTRP No.250 of 2004, who was declared as a tribal, vide Order, dated 29.12.2004, 1st respondent confirming the order of 2nd respondent on the ground that the documentary evidence adduced by the Commissioner (Tribal Welfare) especially the land records relating to the year 1938 have got more probative value than the evidence furnished by the petitioner, seems to be absurd.”Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings of the State authorities were set aside.Case Details:Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.19409 OF 2009Case Title: Atlapakala Rama Krishna v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Social WelfareClick Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 13

Lack Of Documents Not Enough To Reject Caste Claim; Burden Of Proof On Authorities Who Deny ST Status: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saahas Arora

Lack Of Documents Not Enough To Reject Caste Claim; Burden Of Proof On Authorities Who Deny ST Status: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saahas Arora

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers