Case: State Of Rajasthan  Vs. Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt.Ltd

The High Court of Rajasthan has answered the above question in several cases holding that such a transfer would not be hit by the above mentioned provision, since the expressionwould not take in a ‘juristicand that juristic person does not have a caste and, therefore, any transfer made by a Scheduled Caste person would not be hit by Section 42(b) of the Act.4. In the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on an earlier judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in State of Rajasthan v. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (5) WLC (Raj.) 703, which held asIt goes without saying that though the Indian Oil Corporation is a juristic person but it does not have a caste. Thus the sale in favour of Indian Oil Corporation by a member of Scheduled Caste is not covered by the provisions of section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Thus taking into totality of the facts and circumstances, we feel that it is not a fit case where the delay of 480 days should be condoned. The special leave is rejected.The judgment in IOC (supra) was challenged before this Court by the State of Rajasthan in C.C. No. 19386 of 2010 with an application for condonation of delay of 2798 days. This Court dismissed the petition with costs vide order dated 4.1.2011, since the delay was not properly explained.6. We are informed that since the special leave petition, arising out of CC No. 19386 of 2010, was dismissed, the judgment in IOC (supra) is treated as law so far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned and being followed in various other similar cases. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the various legal issues raised before us so as to render an authoritative pronouncement on the question posed before us.7. The respondent is a private limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act vide Registration Certificate of Incorporation dated 17.8.2005. The Company purchased 25 bighas of land in Khasra No. 840/651 situated in Village Jetasan Patwar area Jetasan Tehsil, Rajasthan, out of which 9.73 bighas belonged to the members of Scheduled Caste. That property was purchased on 26.9.2005 by a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-. An application was preferred by the respondent before the Revenue Authorities for mutation of the property. The same was refused placing reliance on a circular dated 19.11.2005, which stated that mutation could be effected only if the transfer was between the members of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Since the application for mutation was refused, the respondent herein filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2006, which was allowed by a learned single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, being D.B. Civil Writ Special Appeal (Writ) No. DR (J) 1177/2008, which was also dismissed following the judgment in IOC (supra).

Court's reasoning:
15. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasoning of the High Court that the respondent being a juristic person, the sale effected by a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, which does not have a caste, is not hit by Section 42 of the Act, is untenable and gives a wrong interpretation to the above mentioned provision.16. We are also of the view that the Revenue Authorities rightly refused the mutation as per circular dated 9.11.2005. Condition No. 7(2) of the circular was rightly invoked by the Revenue Authorities in denying mutation, which condition is extracted below for easyIf the khatedar of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe executes sale to such a person of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe who is office-bearer of any firm/society/company/legal institution, then the mutation on the basis of registration shall be made only in the name of that particular person/vendee who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and not in the name of that firm/society/company/legal institution wherein he is office-bearer or member.The above mentioned condition makes it amply clear that the mutation on the basis of registration shall be made only in the name of that particular person/vendee who is a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and not in the name of any firm/society/company/legal institution wherein a person is office-bearer or member. When we apply the above principles to the transfer of land in question, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale deed effected on 26.9.2005 was void and therefore rightly denied mutation in Revenue records. Property, therefore purchased by the respondent from the members of Scheduled Caste vide sale deed dated 26.9.2005 and other sale deeds, therefore are void since hit by Section 42(b) of the Act and it is so declared. The State can, therefore, re- possess the lands and return the lands to the original owners who are members of Scheduled Caste.18. We may hasten to add, at times, Section 42(b) may go against the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe as well. There may be several situations where they intend to sell the property for purposes like marriage of son/daughter or to purchase a better property and so on, but in that event sometimes they may not get a better competitive price, if the sale is made only among the members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe. We have come across legislations where provisions are made enabling them to sell their lands to the members of non-Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe, on getting permission from the prescribed authority. Such a provision may be sometimes helpful to the members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe to get a better price for their land but it is for the legislature to incorporate appropriate provision in the Rajasthan Act.