SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT THE RESPONDENTS FAILED TO PROVE THE INVALIDITY OF SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY THEIR DECEASED-FATHER

A Two Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath,  and Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgment dated 08.12.2023 in a recent case of M/S Darvell Investment And Leasing (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others Vs The State Of West Bengal And Others.  Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017 and observed that the Respondents 15-16 failed to prove that their Deceased-Father was given any caste certificate, hence, no question arose regarding the invalidity of the alienation of land to third parties under general category.

Facts

i) In the present case, one, Bishwanath Roy and another person, the Complainants filed a Complaint stating that Late Ramanand Baraik, the Father of the Raj Kumar Baraik, the Respondent No. 15 herein alienated the land to an extent of 2.11 acres, vide Registered Sale Deeds dated 30.08.1983 to one, Sanjay Gupta and two others, in violation of Section 14B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (1955 Act) (Restrictions on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes) and Section 14C of the 1955 Act (Modes of transfer of land by Scheduled Tribes).

ii) Since 1980 until late in 1983 more than 10 acres of land has been sold by Ramanand Baraik to various individuals in general category. He was employed by the North Bengal State Transport Corporation, Cooch Behar as a driver in general category. Later, Ramanand Baraik (Deceased) died in the year 1991.

iii) However, on an Application submitted by the Respondent No.15, i..e the Deceased’s son, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), North Bengal State Transport Corporation issued a Caste Certificate of Scheduled Tribe (ST) to the Respondent No.15 on 23.04.1993, stating that he belonged to the ‘Chik Baraik’ Community.

iv) As per the 1995 Act, lands could not have been sold by ST Community persons to third parties, without taking prior permission from the Authorities.

v) Hence, the Respondent No. 15 had filed sworn Affidavits dated 06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000, in which he claimed to be a member of the general caste known as “Tanti.” The Respondent No. 15 went on to say explicitly that he is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes community and that selling of his land is not prohibited.

vi) Thereafter on the Affidavit submitted by Respondent No. 15, the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling vide Memo dated 21.05.2001 informed the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, with reference to bearing Memo No. 816 dated 29.08.2000, on the subject ‘Alienation of S/T land’, the Complaint filed by Bishwanath Roy was dismissed.

vii) Thereafter on 22.01.2004, the Respondents No. 15 to 18 themselves filed an Application before the Revenue Officer, Daknikata through Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Matigara, under Section 14E of the 1955 Act (Power to Revenue Officer to set aside improper transfers by raiyat) challenging the Sale Deeds dated 30.08.1983 executed by the Deceased-Father in favour of Sanjay Gupta and others.

viii) It is pertinent to note here that M/S Darvell Investment and Leasing (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, the Appellants herein were the subsequent Purchasers of the land that was sold to Sanjay Gupta and others by the Deceased, vide Sale Deed dated 30.08.1983.

ix) The Revenue Officer empowered under Section 14E of the 1955 Act directed cancellation of three Sale Deeds dated 30.08.1983 executed in favour of Sanjay Gupta and others, despite the fact that vide earlier Order dated 21.05.2001, a similar Complaint filed against execution of such Deeds had already been dismissed.

x) Aggrieved by the Order of the Revenue Officer, the Appellants filed a Complaint to SDO on 10.04.2005 and 12.05.2005 seeking inquiry into the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent No. 15.

xi) Thereafter, the Appellants addressed a Letter to the District Magistrate & District Collector, Darjeeling on 28.11.2006 for cancelling the Caste Certificate wrongly issued in favour of the Respondent No. 15 and also for restoration of the title of the property in Appellants favour.

xii) The Certificate issuing Authority vide Order dated 06.07.2012 cancelled the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Respondent No. 15 by observing that his father had sold land on number of occasions to different persons under general category.

xiii) Aggrieved by the Order of Cancellation of Caste Certificate dated 06.07.2012, the Respondent No. 15 filed Appeal before the District Magistrate Siliguri (Appellate Authority).

xiv) Thereafter the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 14.01.2013 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Respondent No.15 stating that the Respondent No.15 failed to submit any supporting document to prove his claim of belonging to ‘Chik Baraik’ Community as the Respondent No. 15 had sworn two Affidavits claiming himself to be belonging to general category.

xv) Based on the Order of Additional District Magistrate vide Memo dated 21.01.2013, the District Welfare Officer lodged an FIR against Respondent No. 15 on the ground of committing fraud.

xvi) Aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the Respondent No.15 filed Appeal against the Orders dated 06.07.2012 and 14.01.2013 before the State level Scrutiny Committee (Committee) seeking setting aside of the Orders dated 06.07.2012 and 14.01.2013.

xvii) The Committee opined, vide Order dated 23.12.2013, that the Caste Certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 15 was cancelled inappropriately. The Order was revoked and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

xviii) Aggrieved by the Committee Order dated 23.12.2013, the Appellants filed Writ Petition bearing No. 133(W) of 2014 (WP) before the High Court of Calcutta (High Court), thereby, raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Committee to revoke the Order of the Certificate issuing Authority.

xix) Thereafter, the High Court vide Order dated 28.01.2014 allowed the Appeal filed by the Appellants and set aside the Order of the Committee dated 23.12.2013, thereby directing the Committee to decide on the point of jurisdiction first and then hear all the parties concerned before passing fresh order.

xx) Thereafter, the Committee, vide Order dated 28.3.2014, held that it is empowered to deal with Appeal with reference to verification of Caste Certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 15.

xxi) The Appellants challenged the Committee Order dated 28.3.2014 by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court. The Single Bench of the High Court passed an Order dated 25.11.2014 and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellants.

xxii) Aggrieved by the Single Bench of the High Court Order dated 25.11.2014 the Appellants filed an Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court as Intra-Court Appeal (Division Bench).

xxiii) Thereafter the Division Bench passed an Order dated 30.03.2015, and 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.

Supreme Court Analysis

Aggrieved by the Division Bench Order dated 30.03.2015, the Appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Apex Court passed a Judgment dated 08.12.2023 and made the following observations:

1) The Deceased was engaged as a driver by the Corporation on 01.01.1973 by North Bengal State Transport Corporation, Cooch Behar in general category.

2) Until the termination of the Deceased from his service on 30.11.1987, he never claimed before his employer that he belonged to any reserved category, especially Scheduled Tribe.

3) That the Respondent No.15 failed to produce the Caste Certificate issued to him, and taken a stand that that his original Caste Certificate has been lost. However, no complaint or FIR was lodged.

4) Further, the Respondent No. 15 had even sworn two Affidavits dated 06.07.2000 before Notary Public, Siliguri and 02.08.2000 before Executive Magistrate, Siliguri stating that he belonged to general caste community and not Scheduled Tribe.

5) However, the lands were sold by the Deceased between 1980 and 1983 under general category and those sale transactions were never challenged by the Respondents 15-16 earlier on the ground that their father belonged to the ST Community and hence, the land could not have been alienated, without prior permission of the Authorities. The Respondents 15-16 challenged the Sale Deeds only much later in 2004. Furthermore, the Respondents 15-16 failed to show any certificate to prove that their father was given the ST caste certificate.

Conclusion

Thus, based on the aforesaid observations, the Supreme Court held that remitting the matter back to any Authority to determine whether the Respondent No. 15 was entitled to the Caste Certificate or not, would be a fruitless endeavour, as there is no merit in the Respondent No. 15’s claim. As a result, the Appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court Order dated 30.03.2015 was set aside.

K.Suneel Kumar

Associate

The Indian Lawyer