vil Appeal Nos
1052 53 of 1990
90 From the Judgment and Order dated 471986 of the Orissa High Court in OJC
1007 and 1008 of 1983
AK Panda for the Appellants
Kundan Lal Jagga and KK Gupta for the Respondents
The following Order of the Court was delivered ORDER Special leave granted
Agruments heard
These two appeals on special leave arise out of the common judgment of the High Court of Orissa made in OJC Nos
1007 and 1008 of 1983 decided on July 4 1986 whereby the High Court set aside and quashed the impugned orders made by the Special Officer Land Reforms Central Division Cuttack in OLR Revision No 131 of 1982 as well as OLR No 142 of 1982
The matrix of the case in OJC No 1007 of 1983 is that on July 30 1977 the respondent No 2 Paramanand Sethi filed case No 85 of 1977 under section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act against SShri B Mohapatra Pra fulla Kumar Pati and Gadadhar Pati Respondent Nos 1 3 and 4 for restoration of lands sold to respondent Nos 1 3 and 4 on the ground that respondent No 2 was a member of the Scheduled Caste Dhoba Community and the sales in question were hit by the provisions contained in section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act 1960
The respondent No 2 filed a caste certificate of the Additional Tehasildar Betanoti wherein the respondent No 2 was shown as belonging to Dhoba  by caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste
He also filed the record of rights in the name of Arjun Sethi father of respondent No 2 which showed the caste of Arjun Sethi as Dhoba 
The respondent No 5 Smt
Nilamani Sethi wife of Late Bhanu Sethi also filed OLR Misc
Case No 21 of 1979 under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act stating inter alia that the sale made by her in favour of respondent No 1 who admittedly belonged to Brahmin Caste is void as the said sale was made without the permission of the Revenue Officer as mandatorily required under the provisions of the aid Act
She produced the Caste certificate issued by tile Tehasildar Betanoti which showed that she belonged to Dhoba  caste 91 which is recognised as a scheduled caste
She further filed two caste certificates issued by the two MLAs
which certified that she belonged to a scheduled caste Dhoba
The Revenue Officer vide his order dated March 19 1979 rejected the case No 85 of 1977 filed by the respondent No Paramanand Sethi
The respondent No 2 filed OLR Appeal No of 1979 in the court of Additional District Magistrate Mayutbhanj and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated December 1980
The Additional District Magistrate while allowing the appeal observed as follows It is a known fact that there is no community called Raj aka  community which is different from Dhoba community
Rajaka is only a literary word for the common term Dhoba
While mentioning his caste as Rajaka  the appellant has not ceased to be a Dhoba 
The certificate given by the Addl
Tehasildar Betanoti and the entry in the ROR confirm the assertion of the petitioner that he is a Dhoba by caste
In the circumstances the petitioner must be held to be a SC person and for that matter his brothers and mother are also the members of a SC According to Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act previous permission from the Revenue Offi cer should have been obtained by them before transferring their lands to the respondents
Since this statutory re quirement has not been met the transfers are illegal
The suit land must therefore be restored to the transferors
 Against the said judgment and order the respondent No 1 filed OLR Revision No 131 of 1982 before the Special Officer Land Reforms Central Division Cuttack The said Revision Case was dismissed vide judgment and order dated March 4 1983 on the finding that there were records of competent authorities like Addl
Tehasildar Betanoti and the record of rights showing that the caste of Paramanand Sethi is Dhoba 
it has been further observed that As per the Oriya Bhasakosha the definition of Dhoba  is Rajaka Washerman 
Hence there is no conflict regarding what is the meaning of Rajaka 
It is merely a synonym of the word Dhoba 
The Sanskrit lot Dhoba  is Rajaka 
Just because the word Rajaka  does not find mention in the Presidential Order does not exclude it from the purview 92 of such an order Dhobas  are Scheduled Castes and Rajaka  is a synonym of Dhoba 
Now that the High Court has so eloquently laid down the law in this regard there is no reason to deny protection to the weaker sections on a mere technicality This denial would be contrary to the spirit of the Orissa Land Reforms Act itself OLR Misc
Case No 21 of 1979 filed by the respondent No 5 Smt
Nilamani Sethi was allowed vide order dated March 10 1980 by the Revenue Officer directing the restora tion of the suit lands to respondent No 5 under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act
The respondent No 1 filed OLR Appeal No 42 of 1980 in the Court of Additional District Magistrate Mayurbhanj The said appeal was dis missed vide judgment and order dated February 21 1981 holding that the transferor had amply proved that she was Dhoba which is a Scheduled Caste by producing documentary evidence
She therefore does not cease to be a Dhoba even if she has described herself in the various deeds as Rajaka
Since the transfer of the suit lands had been made to the respondent No 1 Prafulla Kumar Pati who is a brahmin by caste without obtaining prior written permission of the Revenue Officer as required under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act the transactions had been rightly declared as void by the Revenue Officer The suit lands must there fore be restored to the possession of the respondent No 5
Against this order respondent No 1 filed OLR Revi sion No 142 of 1982 before the Special Officer Land Re forms Central Division Cuttack and the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated February 2 1983
The respondent No 1 thereafter filed two writ petitions called OJC Nos 1007 and 1008 of 1983 against the judg ments and orders dated March 4 1983 and February 2 1983 respectively passed by the Special Officer Land Reforms Central Division Cuttack
Both these writ petitions were heard and disposed of by a common judgment impugned in these two appeals on special leave whereby the High Court Orissa set aside and quashed the judgments and orders passed by the Special Officer Iand Reforms Central Division Cuttack and allowed the writ petitions observing inter alia that Considering the cases in hand in the light of the above discussions I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Revenue Authorities have committed a serious 93 error of law in coming to the conclusion that Rajaka  caste was included within the notified castecommunity of Dhoba  as their nature of work was similar
Although it is unneces sary to make any further discussion I must point out that even on a reference to the Bhashakosha it could not be categorically said that Rajaka  was a caste which could not be said to be a class of washerman as the Bhashakosha itself gives other meanings of this word
 Against this judgment and order the instant appeals on special leave have been filed
Before proceeding to decide the question whether the respondent Nos 2 and 5 the trans ferors belonged to the scheduled caste Dhoba Community as mentioned in item No 26 of the List of Scheduled Castes in the Scheduled Caste Order 1950 in the State of Orissa it is relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 22 and Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act 1960 Orissa Act 16 of 1960 Section 22 Restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes
1 Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except where it is in favour of a a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe or b a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe when such transfer is made with the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer Provided that in case of a transfer by sale the Revenue Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is satis fied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing to pay the market price for the land is not available and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the bona fides thereof
2 The State Government may having regard to the law and custom applicable to any area prior to the date of commence ment of this Act by notification direct that the restric tions provided in sub section 1 shall not apply to lands situ ated in such area or belonging to any particular tribe throughout the State or in any part of it
94 3 Except with the written permission of the Revenue Offi cer no such holding shall be sold in execution of a decree to any person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe
4 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force where any document required to be registered under the provisions of Cl
a to Cl
e of sub section 1 of section 17 of the 16 of 1908 purports to effect transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe no register ing officer appointed under that Act shall register any such document unless such document is accompanied by the written permission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer
5 The provisions contained in sub Ss 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the transfer of a holding or part thereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Castes
6 Nothing in this section shall apply a to any sale in execution of a money decree passed or to any transfer by way of mortgage executed in favour of any scheduled bank or in favour of any bank to which the Orissa Co operative Societies Act 1962 Orissa Act 33 of 1962 applies and b to any transfer by a member of a Scheduled Tribe within a Scheduled Area
Section 23 Effect of transfer in contravention of section 22
1 In the case of any transfer in contravention of the provi sions of sub section 1 of section 22 the Revenue Officer on his own information or on the application of any person interest in the land may issue notice in the prescribed manner calling upon the transferor and transferee to show cause why the transfer should not be declared invalid
Section 22 clearly enjoins that a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe can not make a valid transfer of his lands in favour of a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe without obtaining the previous 95 permission in writing of the Revenue Officer to such trans fer
Subsection 5 of the said section further provides that the provisions contained in sub section 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the transfer of a holding or part there of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Castes
Section 23 B of the said Act further provides that if the validity of the transfer of any holding or part thereof is in question the burden of proof that the transfer was valid shall notwith standing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force lie on the transferee
In this case the transfers made by the respondent Nos 2 and 5 in favour of respondent No 1 Prafulla Kumar Pati who admittedly belongs to Brahmin caste are hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the said Act in as much as the previous permission in writing of the Revenue Officer had not been obtained to the alleged transfers
It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos 2 and 5 that they belong to Dhoba Dhobi community which is one of the Sched uled Caste in the State of Orissa under the Scheduled Caste Order 1950
It has been further contended that the father of the respondent No 2 has been recorded as belonging to Dhoba community in the finally published record of rights which has been annexed as Annexure B  to these appeals
It has also been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos 2 and 5 that the caste certificates granted by the Tehsildar Betanoti as well as by the two local MLAs
clearly estab lished that the respondent Nos 2 and 5 belong to Dhoba community and as such they are Scheduled Castes
Much argu ment has been advanced on the mentioning of the caste of these two respondents as Rajaka  in the alleged deeds on the ground that the caste Rajaka  as mentioned in the sale deeds did not find place in the List and instead the Caste Dhoba  appears in Item 26 of the List of Scheduled Castes in the State of Orissa under the Constitution of Scheduled Caste Order 1950 as made under Article 341 of the Constitu tion of India
It has been urged in this connection that the Caste Rajaka  as mentioned in the deeds can not be taken to be synonym of caste Dhoba  and no evidence can be adduced to that effect to prove that Rajaka  included within the notified caste commentary of Dhoba  as held by the High Court
We are unable to accept this contention advanced on behalf of the respondent Nos 1 3 and 4 on the ground that the caste of the respondent No 2 and 5 was mentioned in the caste certificates granted by the Tehsildar Betanoti as Dhoba 
Moreover in the finally published record of rights the caste of the father of respondent No 2 had been record ed also as Dhoba  which undoubtedly is a Scheduled 96 Caste under the Scheduled Castes Order 1950 issued under the provisions of Article 341 of the Constitution of India
It is also pertinent to mention that Rajaka  is the literal synonym for the word Dhoba  and according to the Puma Chandra Oriya Bhasakosha which is a recognised authority the definition of Dhoba  is Rajaka washerman
As such the submission that the caste Rajaka  is different from caste Dhoba  is not at all sustainable
It is pertinent to refer in this connection to the observations of the Supreme Court in B Basavalingappa vs D Munichinnappa  at 320 wherein it has been observed that Ordinarily therefore it would not have been open in the present case to give evidence that the Voddar caste was the same as the Bhovi caste specified in the Order for Voddar caste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste in the Order
But that in our opinion does not conclude the matter in the peculiar circumstances of the present case
The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact which was not disputed before the High Court that in the Mysore State as it was before the re organisation of 1956 there was no caste known as Bhovi at all
The Order refers to a scheduled caste known as Bhovi at the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and therefore it must be accepted that there was some caste which the President intended to include after consultation with the Rajpramukh in the Order when the Order mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled caste
It cannot be accepted that the President included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there was no such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956
But when it is not disputed that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before 1956 the only course open to courts to find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is to take evidence in that behalf
 In the instant case referring to this decision even though the respondent Nos 2 and 5 ie the transferors mentioned in the deeds of transfer their caste as Rajaka  there is no such caste mentioned in the Constitution of Scheduled Caste Order 1950
In such circumstances relying on the aforesaid observation of this Court it is necessary and also incumbent on the Court to consider as to what caste the respondent Nos 2 and 5 belong to
Moreover considering the record of 97 rights as well as the various certificates issued by the revenue authorities and the local MLAs
referred to here inbefore wherein the transferors have been described as belonging to Dhoba  community the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the respondents transferors belong to Dhoba  caste which is one of the Scheduled Caste in the State of Orissa
In the premises aforesaid the judgment and order of the High Court referred to in OJC Nos 1007 and 1008 of 1983 are liable to be set aside
We therefore set aside the same and affirm the order of the Special Officer Land Reforms Central Division Cuttack passed in OLR Revision No 131 of 1982 and OLR No 142 of 1982
The respondent Nos 1 3 and 4 are directed to restore the lands in ques tion to the possession of the respondent Nos 2 and 5 forth with
The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs
TNA Appeals allowed


Summary:
The question is whether the property in dispute was the private property owned by the Ruler or State property On August 25 1948 the then Maharaja of erstwhile Chhatarpur State made a gift of the house in dispute in favour of his father in law Dewan Shankar Partap Singh now deceased and represented by his legal representative appellant
This gift became the subject matter of dispute in the suit filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh in 1962
The Trial Court s clear findings were that the property in dispute was not that of the Maharaja as it had been gifted away by him to the de fendant and was mistakenly shown later as State Property 
The High Court allowed the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh on the view taken by it that the property in dispute had vested in the United State of Vindhya Pradesh on May 1 1948 and thereafter no valid gift could be made by the Ruler in favour of the defendant and whatever rights and power the Ruler had as a sovereign ceased to exist after May 1 1948 and the gift made thereafter could not give the defend ant a valid title to the property
Allowing the appeal this Court HELD The Ruler of Chhatarpur lost none of his sover eignty by integrating his State with other States except to the extent in which it was arranged or re distributed on some of its aspects
It is in exercise of that sovereign power that the Ruler had set apart the property in dispute as one of his private properties in the list submitted on July 5 1948
52F The High Court committed an error that the Ruler had lost his sovereign right to earmark the property in dispute as his private property after May 1 1948 or that the said property vested in the State with effect from that date or that the letter Exhibit P 9 of Shri NM Buch 44 and the lists attached thereto had the effect of divesting the appellants of the title to the property in dispute in favour of the State with effect from that date
53E Virendra Singh  Ors
vs State of Uttar Pradesh 1955 I SCR 415 referred to