SC-ST Person Who Is Ordinary Resident Of One State Can't Claim Quota Benefits In State To Which He Migrated : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste /Scheduled Tribe in relation to his original State of which he is permanent or an ordinarily resident cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his migration to that State.The court noted that as per 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. This provision is to protect a member of the Scheduled Caste belonging to the very State he belongs to, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed.BackgroundAs per 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. In this case, the purchaser was a Scheduled Caste belonging to State of Punjab and was ordinarily and permanent resident of the State of Punjab. A suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the said sale deed is in violation of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954. The suit was decreed, against which an appeal was preferred before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court held that the defendant 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, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled Caste landless person.The issue thus before the Apex Court in the appeal filed by plaintiff was whether a person, who 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 Colonization Act, 1954?Referring to the decisions 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 Vs. Union of India and Another, (1994) 5 SCC 244 and subsequent judgments, the bench comprising Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna observed:It is to be noted that as per 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. 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 belonging to the very State he belongs i.e., in the present case the State of Rajasthan. Being a Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab whether the sale transaction in favour of the appellant original defendant could have been saved from the bar under Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is now not res integra.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, which was given to original allottee as Scheduled 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 Tenancy Act, 1955.The court therefore held that the land transaction in favour of the defendant was in breach of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Colonization Act, 1954 and Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.Case name: Bhadar Ram (D) vs Jassa RamCitation: 2022 LIVELAW (SC) 10Case no. and Date: CA 5933 of 2021 | 5 Jan 2022Coram: Justice MR Shah and AS Bopanna Click here to Read/Download Judgment

SC-ST Person Who Is Ordinary Resident Of One State Can't Claim Quota Benefits In State To Which He Migrated : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

SC-ST Person Who Is Ordinary Resident Of One State Can't Claim Quota Benefits In State To Which He Migrated : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers