The issue in the present appeal pertains to cancellation of caste certificate issued to respondent No. 15. (Para 2)
On 08.02.2000, respondent No. 15 purchased 0.07 acres of land for the purpose of construction of a dwelling house for a total sale consideration of Rs.93,950/-. It is claimed that the aforesaid land was sold by respondent No. 15 on 01.03.2000. At that stage, he claimed himself to be belonging to general category and no permission as such was taken for sale of the land under Sections 14B and 14C of the 1955 Act[The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955]. Seventeen years after registration of the sale deeds by late Ramanand Baraik in favour of Sanjay Gupta and others on 30.08.1983 and about ten years after his death, a complaint was filed by Bishwanath Roy and another person claiming that the aforesaid land had been sold in violation of Section 14B and 14 C of the 1955 Act. Notices were issued to the complainant as well as Sanjay Gupta on 29.06.2000 on the subject ‘Alienation of S/T land’. (Para 5)
There are affidavits sworn by respondent No. 15 dated 06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000 stating that he belongs to general caste which is ‘Tanti’. He further specifically stated that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribes community and that there is no bar for selling his land. (Para 6)
The District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling vide memo dated 21.05.2001 informed the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, with reference to his memo No. 816 dated 29.08.2000, on the subject ‘Alienation of S/T land’ that the complaint filed by Bishwanath Roy was dismissed. It referred to the affidavit submitted by respondent No. 15. (Para 6.1)
On 22.01.2004, respondents No. 15 to 18 filed an application under Section 14E of the 1955 Act challenging the sale deeds dated 30.08.1983 executed in favour of Sanjay Gupta and others by his late father. This was despite the fact that earlier similar complaint filed by Bishwanath challenging the aforesaid sale deed had already been dismissed. (Para 7)
Having come to know that respondent No. 15 had executed number of sale deeds claiming himself to be belonging to general category and further that the caste certificate was obtained by him inter alia by playing fraud, the appellants No. 1 and 2 through their attorney filed an application for cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15 on 29.03.2012 before S.D.O., Siliguri. The proceedings were initiated. The certificate issuing authority vide order dated 06.07.2012 cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15. (Para 11)
Thereafter, vide order dated 02.01.2014, the Committee decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by respondent No. 15. The order was communicated to the parties vide letter dated 28.03.2014. (Para 35)
The aforesaid order dated 02.01.2014, as communicated to the parties vide memo dated 28.3.2014, was challenged by the appellants before the High Court. Single Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 25.11.2014 found merit in the arguments raised on behalf of respondent No. 15 and opined that the Committee had the jurisdiction to entertain the issue regarding his social status. (Para 36)
The aforesaid order passed by the Single Bench was challenged by the appellants by filing appeal. The Division Bench, vide impugned order dated 30.03.2015 had upheld the order passed by the Single Judge holding that the Committee had jurisdiction to enquire into the complaints of illegal cancellation of Caste Certificate. (Para 37)
However, we do not deem it appropriate to follow that route considering the conduct of the private respondents. The fact which remained undisputed even at the time of hearing is that late father of respondent No. 15 who was in service of the Corporation, never claimed himself to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. During his life time, he had sold about ten acres of land between 1980 and 1983 including the sale deed in question executed in favour of Sanjay Gupta and two others. None of those sale transactions have been challenged by him during his life time or by respondents No. 15 and 16, after his death claiming that the father belonged to Scheduled Tribe community. In fact, there was no certificate issued to that extent in his favour. It was the father who had executed the sale deeds. It also came on record that respondent No. 15 had executed the sale deeds I-1039 dated 01.03.2000 and I-575 dated 07.02.2001. Those were also executed without seeking any permission from any authority. There is no challenge to that. Earlier to that, a complaint was filed for cancellation of the sale deed in question which was closed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 29.08.2000 holding that respondent No. 15 did not belong to Scheduled Tribe community, as was even the status mentioned in two affidavits dated 06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000 sworn by him before Notary Public and Executive Magistrate, respectively. (Para 39)
There is nothing produced on record to show that late Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15 was ever issued any certificate showing him belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. The sale deeds in question were registered on 30.08.1983. It shows that on the basis of a certificate, which was issued subsequently in favour of respondent No. 15, he sought to challenge one of the various sale deeds executed by his late father Ramanand Baraik during his life time. Even at the time of death of late Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15, in the year 1991, respondent No. 15 was more than 18 years of age. The sale deeds in question in isolation were sought to be challenged only in the year 2004, even though the certificate of Scheduled Tribe community was issued in favour of respondent No. 15 in the year 1993. (Para 40)
Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed by the High Court is set aside. It will be an exercise in futility to remit the matter back to any authority for examination as we do not find any merit in the claim of respondent No. 15.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 468 SC
[2023 INSC 1057]
M/S Darvell Investment And Leasing (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others Vs. State Of West Bengal And Others
Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017-Decided on 8-12-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2023-STPLWeb-468-SC.pdf
