Special Leave Petition Civil No 11493 of 1989 From the Judgment and Order dated 791989 of the Bombay High Court in WP No 3762 of 1989
Mrs Indira Jaisingh Tripurari Ray and MN Shroff for the Petitioner
VN Ganpule and AS Bhasme for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This Special Leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dis missing summarily Writ Petition No 3762 of 1989 filed by the petitioner
The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Certificate hereinafter referred to as the HSC examination held in March 1989 and sought admission to a medical college in Bombay conducted by the Government or one of the Municipal Medical Colleges in the city of 3 Bombay on the footing that she belonged to the Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli
In support of her claim she tendered certain caste certificates
Her application was referred in accordance with the relevant rules to the Scrutiny Commit tee
which is an expert body for determination of caste claims for verifying her claim to belong to the aforesaid Scheduled Tribe
In support of her claim the petitioner submitted several caste certificates obtained by her
At the hearing before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioner also furnished the Secondary School Leaving Certificate of her father
Her father was requested to furnish his Primary School Leaving Certificate or birth certificate in order to ascertain the correct caste of the petitioner but he failed to produce the same
The Committee therefore conducted the necessary inquiries at the Municipal Primary School Worli Koliwada Bombay where the petitioner s father had taken his primary education
That school by its letter dated April 29 1989 disclosed entries made in register of the said school showing inter alia that the caste of the petitioner s father was recorded as Son Koli
These entries were made in 1945 when there was no special advantage which the Sched uled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli enjoyed over the members of the caste of Son Koli
It was pointed out by the Committee that these entries are entitled to a very great probative value as they have been made at a time when no question of making any manipulation arose
The certificates relied upon by the petitioner have been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee primarily because these certificates were inconsistent with the entries in the said Register of the Primary School relating to the petitioner s father to which the Committee attached great probative value
The reasons given by the Scrutiny Committee for the rejection cannot be said to be irrelevant or perverse
There is no complaint that the rules of fairplay have not been observed by the scrutiny Commit tee
It rejected the claim of the petitioner that she be longed to the Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli
This decision was upheld by the Additional Commissioner for Tribal Devel opment State of Maharashtra in an appeal preferred by the petitioner
Against the decision the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the aforesaid decision and that writ petition was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of that High Court
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner who has strongly urged that the High Court was in error in rejecting the writ petition summarily as it is done
We find however that it has not been shown how the decision of the Scrutiny Committee or the Appellate decision of the Commissioner for Tribal Welfare discloses any error calling for any interfer ence in a writ petition
The entire controversy 4 has to be appreciated in the light of the admitted fact that Mahadeo Koli is a Scheduled Tribe whereas Son Koli is a caste
We cannot find fault with the Scrutiny Committee for placing great reliance on the entries in the register of the primary school where the petitioner s father took his pri mary education as at the time when these entries were made there was no reason why he should have made a wrong state ment about the caste or tribe to which he belonged
It was sought to be contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Scrutiny Committee has proceeded on an entirely erroneous basis as the real claim of the petitioner is that Son Kolis are a section of the Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli
We find however that this contention has nowhere been raised before the Scrutiny Committee or before the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare although it does appear to have been raised in the writ petition
It was not open to the petitioner to raise this contention for the first time in the writ petition
Learned counsel drew our attention to the list of the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra appearing in Para 9 of the 
Entry 29 shows that Koli Mahadeo is a Scheduled Tribe recognised in Maharash tra
In the list of Backward Classes issued by the State of Maharashtra we find that Kolis are recognised as belonging to other backward classes
Son Kolis are shown as belong ing to other backward classes in the list of other backward classes issued by the State of Maharashtra
These documents however nowhere support the claim that Son Kolis are a section of Scheduled Tribe of Mahadeo Koli
Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to a publication entitled Transactions of the Bombay Geograph ical Society from 1836 to 1838 which has been printed in 1844
In this publication Kolis are described as a tribe but a perusal of the relevant observations show that no distinction has been drawn in this publication between castes and tribes and hence the statements made in the said publication do not lend any support to the claim of the petitioner
In the result there is no merit in the special leave petition and it is dismissed
No orders as to costs
NPV Petition dismissed


Summary:
Certain land belonging to the respondent was compulsorily acquired by the Government for a maternity hospital
Most of the land consisted of building sites but there was a building on a small portion of the land and a portion was low lying land
The Special Land Acquisition Officer held on the basis of the value of sites previously sold by the respondent that the market value of the land was Rs 10 per sq yard and awarded a sum of Rs 141169 to the respondent as compensation
He did not give any compensation for the low lying land or for the building
Against this award the respondent raised an objection and a reference was made to the District judge
The District judge accepted the rate of Rs 10 per sq yard as fair reduced the amount of deductions for providing electric installations by Rs 10000 and allowed a sum of Rs 10000 for the low lying area at the rate of Rs 3 per sq
yard thereby increasing the amount of compensation by Rs 20000 
Not being satisfied the respondent appealed to the High Court
The High Court held that the rate of compensation for the land except the low lying portion should be Rs 138 per sq yard and for the low lying portion it should be Rs 88 per sqyard
It further awarded a sum of Rs 7000 for the building
In arriving at the figure of Rs 138 the High Court took into account only four sale transactions which had been made by the respondent at the rates of Rs 12 I5 14 and 78 per sq yard but did not take into consideration two other transactions which had been made by the respondent at the rates of Rs 68 and Rs 10 per sq yard
It calculated the average of the four transactions to be Rs 122per sq yard and then took a second average between Rs 15  405 which was the maximum price obtained by the respondent and RS
122 and arrived at the figure of Rs 138 
The High Court was also influenced by considerations such as the purpose for which the land was acquired
 the report of certain medical authorities as to the unsuitability of the land for the maternity hospital and the delay in putting the land to the use for which it was acquired
Held that with regard to the valuation of the land other than the low lying portion the High Court misdirected itself by taking into account extraneous considerations and had committed an error of principle in arriving at the figure of Rs 138 by adopting a wrong method of ascertaining the market value
The High Court ought to have taken the average of all the six sale transactions and arrived at the proper valuation of Rs 11 per sq yard
There was no justification for ignoring two of the sale transactions or for taking a second average
With respect to the compensation for the low lying land and the building there was no error of principle or otherwise in the findings of the High Court and no interference was called for