M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS

                 [2023] 16 S.C.R. 941 : 2023 INSC 1057



                  CASE DETAILS
  M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT.
                 LTD. AND OTHERS
                                     v.
          THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS
                     (Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017)
                          DECEMBER 08, 2023
          [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                           HEADNOTES
     Issue for consideration: Cancellation of caste certificate issued to
respondent No.15.
      The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Caste certificate issued
in favour of respondent No.15, inter-related with the sale transactions
of the land – Cancellation of Caste certificate:
       Held: Sale deeds in question were executed by late father of
respondent No. 15 – There is nothing produced on record to show that late
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 during
his life time claiming that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe community
and the sale transaction was in violation of ss.14B,14C of the 1955 Act –
Respondent No. 15’s father was engaged as a driver by the Corporation on
01.01.1973 – His services were terminated w.e.f. 30.11.1987 – As per the
record with his employer, he belonged to general category – Late father
of respondent No.15, 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
– 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
                                    941
942          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 16 S.C.R.


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 – Even at the time of death of 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 – No merit in
the claim of respondent No. 15 – Impugned judgment passed by the High
Court set aside – West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Identification) Act, 1994 – s.8A. [Paras 29, 39-41]
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6106 of 2017.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2015 of the High Court of
Calcutta in MAT No.2117 of 2014.
      Appearances:
     Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Nipun
Katyal, Shashank Shekhar, Aman Sharma, Nadeem Afroz, Aditya Sidhra,
Ms. Kismat Chauhan, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pratiksha Sharma, Ankit Acharya,
Ms. Ritu Chaudhary, Sunil Fernandes, Srisatya Mohanty, Shreyas Awasthi,
Ms. Priyansha Sharma, Ms. Diksha Dadu, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 943
            v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL


       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
                                 JUDGMENT
     RAJESH BINDAL, J.
      1. The judgment1 of the Division Bench of High Court2 is under
challenge in the present appeal. Vide aforesaid judgment, the order3 passed
by the Single Judge was upheld.
      2. The issue in the present appeal pertains to cancellation of caste
certificate issued to respondent No. 15.
     SET OF FACTS
      3. Late-Ramanand Baraik sold 2.11 acres of land vide registered sale
deeds dated 30.08.1983 to one Sanjay Gupta and two others. It was mutated
in the name of the purchasers. Between 1980 and 1983, late-Ramanand
Baraik sold more than ten acres of land to different persons. He was working
as a driver with the Corporation4. He was appointed as such on 01.01.1973
and was terminated from service w.e.f. 30.11.1987. As per the record with
his employer, he belonged to general category. Ramanand passed away in
the year 1991.
     4. On an application filed by respondent No. 15 son of late Ramanand
Baraik, the concerned SDO5 on 23.04.1993 issued a Caste Certificate of
Scheduled Tribe in his favour showing him to be belonging to ‘Chik Baraik’.
      5. 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 ₹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 Sections14B and 14C of the 1955 Act6. Seventeen years after



1   Judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed in MAT No. 2117 of 2014
2   High Court at Calcutta.
3   Order dated 25.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 12426(W) of 2014.
4   The North Bengal State Transport Corporation, Cooch Behar
5   The Sub Divisional Officer
6   The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
944          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 16 S.C.R.


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’.
       6. 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. Subsequent thereto,
on 07.02.2001, respondents No. 15 and 16 sold land to one Zainul Abdin.
It is stated in the aforesaid sale-deed that 0.26 acres of land was purchased
by late Ramanand Baraik, which was inherited by them being the only legal
heir, after the death of Ramanand Baraik in the year 1991. Out of that, they
sold 0.07 acres of land in favour of one Parmeshwar Rao Nalla and one
Zainul Abdin. At that stage, no permission was taken for sale of the land
under Sections 14B and 14C the 1955 Act, even though it is claimed that
respondent No. 15 had been issued a certificate of his belonging to S.T.
Category on 23.04.1993.
      6.1 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.
      7. 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.
     8. The appellants No. 1 and 2 purchased the land in dispute from
Sanjay Gupta and others on 24.11.2004. Vide order dated 29.11.2004, the
Revenue Officer empowered under Section 14E of the 1955 Act directed
cancellation of three sale deeds dated 30.08.1983 in favour of Sanjay Gupta
and others. A perusal of the order shows that notice was also issued to them,
though prior to that the land had been purchased by appellants No. 1 and 2
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 945
    v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


on 24.11.2004. The order was passed despite the fact that vide earlier order
dated 21.05.2001, similar complaint had already been dismissed.
       9. On 10.04.2005, the Director of appellants No. 1 and 2 wrote a
letter to the SDO seeking enquiry into the caste certificate issued in favour
of respondent No. 15. It was followed by another letter dated 12.05.2005.
      10. Appellants No. 1 and 2 addressed a letter to the District Magistrate
& District Collector, Darjeeling on 28.11.2006 for cancelling the caste
certificate wrongly issued in favour of respondent No. 15 and also for
restoration of the title of the property in their favour. It was followed by
another letter dated 04.05.2007.
      11. 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. The order noticed
that not only respondent No. 15 but even his father had sold land on number
of occasions to different persons as general category. It also referred to the
affidavits sworn by him that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribes category.
When respondent No. 15 appeared before the authority, he clearly claimed
that his caste certificate was lying with his advocate. However, later on he
submitted that he lost the same for which no FIR was lodged. No material
was produced on the basis of which such a certificate could be issued. Even
in the office record, nothing was found which could justify issuance of caste
certificate in favour of respondent No. 15.
      12. On 26.07.2012, appellants No. 1 and 2 filed application for
mutation of the land in their favour as the caste certificate issued in favour
of respondent No. 15 already stood cancelled.
      13. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of cancellation of caste
certificate dated 06.07.2012, respondent No. 15 filed appeal before the
District Magistrate. The said appeal was dismissed by the Additional District
Magistrate (Appellate Authority) vide order dated 14.01.2013. The order
946             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2023] 16 S.C.R.


refers to the report from S.D.O., Siliguri that respondent No. 15 had failed
to submit any supporting document to prove his claim of belonging to ‘Chik
Baraik’ community; he had sworn two affidavits claiming himself to be
belonging to general category; his father late Ramanand Baraik, his brother
and he himself had sold land to various persons claiming to be belonging to
general category without seeking permission. Even his father late Ramanand
Baraik was also not a Scheduled Tribe, hence his son could not be. Copy
of the aforesaid order was forwarded by the Additional District Magistrate
vide memo dated 21.01.2013 to the District Welfare Officer. The District
Magistrate also directed the District Welfare Officer to lodge FIR against
respondent No. 15 on the ground of committing fraud.
     14. Vide letter dated 06.03.2013, Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division
wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri Police Commissionerate to
advise respondent No. 15 to file appeal against the order dated 06.07.2012
cancelling his caste certifi cate. It was then respondent No. 15 filed
appeal against the orders dated 06.07.2012 and 14.01.2013 before the
Committee7.
      15. The appellants filed Writ Petition8 challenging the memo dated
06.03.2013 addressed by the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division to the
Commissioner of Police, Siliguri. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed
of on 25.04.2013 noticing the stand of the State that communication dated
06.03.2013, which was impugned in the writ petition, had been withdrawn
by the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division on 18.04.2013. It was left open
to the parties to avail their appropriate remedy.
      16. Appellants No. 1 and 2 sold 1.76 acres of land in favour of
appellants No. 3 and 4 on 17.09.2013. The land stood mutated in the names
of the appellants.
      17. Having come to know that the respondent No. 15 had approached
the Committee raising grievance against cancellation of his caste certificate
in his favour, appellants No.1 and 2 submitted a letter on 05.11.2013 giving
detailed facts and also praying for an opportunity of hearing.



7     State Level Scrutiny Committee
8     Writ Petition No. 10002 of 2013
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 947
    v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


     18. Vide order dated 23.12.2013, the Committee opined that the
caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15 was cancelled
inappropriately. Hence, the order was revoked and the matter was remitted
back for consideration afresh.
     19. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants before the
High Court by filing Writ Petition9. The writ petition was allowed vide order
dated 28.01.2014. The order passed by the Committee was set aside. The
Committee was directed to decide on the point of jurisdiction first and then
hear all the parties concerned before passing fresh order.
      20. Vide order dated 28.3.2014, the Committee opined that it is always
empowered to deal with appeal with reference to verification of the caste
certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15. The aforesaid order was
challenged by the appellants by filing a Writ Petition which was dismissed
vide order dated 25.11.2014. The order passed by the Single Bench was
challenged by the appellants by filing Intra-Court Appeal. The High Court
vide impugned judgment dismissed the appeal opining that the Committee
has jurisdiction to enquire into the complaints of cancellation of illegal
Caste Certificate.
      ARGUMENTS
      21. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants while narrating the facts, as noticed above, submitted that the
impugned judgment of the High Court is illegal, whereby it was held that
the Committee had power to hear an appeal regarding cancellation of
caste certificate. The amendment in Section 8A of the 1994 Act10, carried
out vide notification dated 15.09.2017, cannot be said to be retrospective
as the Legislature has not expressed that intention. Even the objects as
mentioned in the Bills for carrying out the amendment do not suggest the
same. He further submitted that the conduct of respondents No. 15 to 18
also needs to be examined by this Court to see their bona fide. Number of
sale deeds had been executed by late Ramanand Baraik during his life time
and thereafter by his sons- respondents No. 15 and 16 without seeking
permission from the competent authority, in case the claim was that they


9 Writ Petition No. 133(W) of 2014
10 West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994
948          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 16 S.C.R.


belong to Scheduled Tribes community. The sale deeds were executed from
the year 1983 onwards. It is only the sale deeds in question for which the
issues are sought to be raised.
      22. He further submitted that even as per the certificate issued by the
Corporation, father of respondent No. 15 when entered into Government
service as a driver of the Corporation, claiming himself to be belonging to
general category. He never claimed that he was Scheduled Tribe. Once the
father was not Scheduled Tribe, his legal heirs cannot possibly be. Even
respondent No. 15 had sworn two affidavits dated 06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000
specifically stating that he belongs to General Category of ‘Tanti’ and
does not belong to any Scheduled Tribe community. He even got the sale
deed registered on 01.03.2000 without taking any permission. Further, one
Bishwanath Roy made a complaint regarding the sale deeds in question,
which was dismissed on 29.08.2000. However, on enquiry and finding that
respondent No. 15 had already sworn affidavits that he belongs to general
category, the same was closed. Subsequent thereto, respondent No. 15 sought
to re-open the issue. He could not even produce his original caste certificate
when the proceedings were conducted by certificate issuing authority. No
record was found even in the office. Once the family had been executing
number of sale deeds claiming themselves to be of general category, the
issue sought to be raised with reference to the sale deeds in question shows
some oblique motive.
      23. He further submitted that seeing the chequered history of the case,
which is hanging fire for the last 19 years, the issue needs to be closed as
respondent No. 15 does not deserve any relief. The matter should not be sent
back to either of the authorities as respondent No. 15 is only bent upon to
harass the appellants who have not been able to raise construction though
the property was purchased more than 19 years ago. On other portions of
land sold by respondent No. 15, construction has already been raised. It was
further submitted that the idea of enactment of the protective legislation of
seeking permission for sale of land belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
Tribes is only to save their property so that they are not forced to sell the
same. But in the case in hand as the facts suggest, predecessor-in-interest
of respondents No. 15 and 16 was owning huge property which he sold
from time to time.
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 949
    v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


       24. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 15 to
18 submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the High Court.
Considering the amendment carried out vide Act No. XXXV of 201711 in the
1994 Act, the Committee has power to examine the issue, even in the case of
cancellation of caste certificate. The amendment carried out is retrospective
as it is clarificatory in nature. Even if the caste certificate in the case in hand
was cancelled prior to the notification of the amendment in Section 8A of
the 1994 Act, the issue can still be examined by the Committee. Now it has
power to deal with the same. Even otherwise, respondents No. 15 to 18
could not be left remediless. If they could not challenge the cancellation
of caste certificate before the Committee or any other authority, they could
certainly avail their remedy by filing a writ petition. He further submitted
that presently respondents No. 15 to 18 are carrying on minimal work and
are hardly able to make their both ends meet.
      25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
referred record.
      26. The primary issue in the case in hand is with reference tocaste
certificate issued to the respondent No. 15. A certificate was issued in
his favour on 23.04.1993 declaring him as belonging to ‘Chik Baraik’, a
Scheduled Tribe. It is inter-related with the sale transactions of the land. In
case, respondent No. 15 belongs to Scheduled Tribe community, permission
is required for selling the land. In case, he is not, no permission is required.
In the case in hand, the sale deed which is subject matter of dispute was
executed by late Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15 in favour
of Sanjay Gupta and two others on 30.08.1983.
      27. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties,
we deem it appropriate to extract the details of various sale deeds executed
by late Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15. These are detailed
out in paragraph No. 8 of the memo dated 03.04.2013 issued by District
Magistrate. The same are extracted below:



11 The West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) (Amendment)
   Act, 2017
950          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 16 S.C.R.



      Sl.   Regd.          Name of      Name of the   Mouza     Plot No.   Area
      No.                  the Vendor   Purchaser                          (Acre)
            Deed No.
      1.    I-167          Ramnandan Roshan Lal       Daknikata 209 to     0.66
                           Baraik    Agarwal                    220
            Dt. 28.03.80
                                                                (R.S)
      2.    I-168          Ramnandan Tara Devi        Daknikata 209 to     1.00
                           Baraik    Agarwal                    220
            Dt. 28.03.80
      3.    I-169          Ramnandan Banwari Lal      Daknikata 209 to     0.33
                           Baraik    Agarwal                    220
            Dt. 28.03.80
      4.    I-170          Ramnandan Binay Kumar Daknikata 209 to          0.66
                           Baraik    Sharma                220
            Dt. 28.03.80
      5.    I-171          Ramnandan Susila Devi      Daknikata 209 to     0.66
                           Baraik    Agarwal                    220
            Dt. 28.03.80
      6.    I-481          Ramnandan Sanjay Gupta Daknikata 465, 466       0.70
                           Baraik
            Dt. 30.08.83
      7.    I-482          Ramnandan Anjay Gupta      Daknikata 465, 466   0.70
                           Baraik
            Dt. 30.08.83
      8.    I-483          Ramnandan Ashish Gupta Daknikata 465, 466       0.71
                           Baraik
            Dt. 30.08.83

      28. At the time of hearing, it remained undisputed that the only sale
deed dated 30.08.1983 executed by late Ramanand Baraik in favour of
Sanjay Gupta and two others is subject matter of dispute as on the same
ground other sale transactions entered into by late Ramanand Baraik are
not in question in any other case.
      29. The fact remains that the sale deeds in question were executed by
late Ramanand Baraik. He was engaged as a driver by the Corporation on
01.01.1973. His services were terminated w.e.f. 30.11.1987. As per the record
with his employer, he belonged to general category. A certificate to that extent
issued by the Corporation has been annexed showing that late Ramanand
Baraik was from general category as per the record of the Corporation.
Meaning thereby, till his termination from service on 30.11.1987, he never
claimed even with his employer that he belonged to any reserved category,
especially Scheduled Tribe, as is sought to be claimed by respondent No. 15.
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 951
    v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


      30. The sale deeds were sought to be challenged by respondents No.
15 and 16 by moving an application dated 22.01.2004 before Revenue
Officer, Daknikata through Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Matigara.
It was claimed that they belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and the
sale transaction was in violation of Sections 14B and 14C of the 1955 Act.
Notice was issued to the vendees-Sanjay Gupta and others. Revenue Officer,
vide order dated 29.11.2004, declared the sale deeds as null and void.
The order was impugned by the appellants No. 1 and 2 before the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Siliguri under Section 14H of the 1955 Act
because in the meanwhile vide sale deeds dated 24.11.2004, Sanjay Gupta
sold the land to appellants No. 1 and 2. Vide order dated 16.03.2005, the
Civil Judge dismissed the application. The order was further challenged in
revision before District Judge, Darjeeling who also dismissed the same vide
order dated 23.02.2006.
      31. Attorney of appellants No. 1 and 2 filed an application dated
29.03.2012 before SDO, Siliguri for cancellation of Caste Certificate issued
in favour of respondent No. 15. He was granted number of opportunities
to submit his original Tribal Certificate and personally appear along with
documentary evidence. Initially, his stand was that the caste certificate is
lying with his Advocate, hence, he may be granted some time to produce
the same. Thereafter, the stand taken was that his original caste certificate
has been lost. However, undisputedly no complaint or FIR was lodged. The
fact remained that he was not able to produce any material or the original
caste certificate in his favour. The aforesaid application for cancellation of
the caste certificate was disposed of inter alia with the observation that no
supporting documents were found in the record, on the basis of which caste
certificate was issued in favour of respondent No. 15; father of respondent
No. 15, namely, Ramanand Baraik was serving as a Driver in the Corporation
as general category employee; respondent No. 15 had 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. The signatures on the receipt register
supply copy of the Caste Certificate issued to respondent No. 15 and on the
affidavits were found to be identical.
952          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      32. Respondent No. 15 sold the property vide sale deed No.
I/1039/2000 dated 01.03.2000 as a person belonging to general category
and subsequently, respondents No. 15 and 16 sold another inherited property
vide sale deed No. I/575/2001 dated 07.02.2001. No permission was sought
while executing the aforesaid sale deeds. Late Ramanand Baraik, father of
respondent No. 15 had sold more than ten acres of land between 1980 and
1983 claiming himself to be of general category. A complaint was filed
regarding sale of the land in question, however, the same was closed by
District Land and Land Revenue Officer vide order memo dated 21.05.2001
holding that respondent No. 15 and his family members are non-Tribal.
      33. In view of the aforesaid facts, SDO, Siliguri cancelled the caste
certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15 on 06.07.2012. The
aforesaid order was challenged by respondent No. 15 by filing appeal before
the District Magistrate (Appellate Authority). The order of cancellation of
caste certificate was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated
14.01.2013. Thereafter, respondent No. 15 moved an application before
the Committee. Vide order dated 23.12.2013, the Committee set aside the
order dated 06.07.2012 passed by the SDO cancelling the Caste Certificate
issued in favour of respondent No. 15. The Committee directed the Director,
Cultural Research Institute to conduct an enquiry and to verify the caste
status of respondent No. 15. On receipt of the report dated 18.04.2013,
the Committee was of the view that respondent No. 15 belongs to ‘Chik
Baraik’ of Scheduled Tribe community. Even the Committee observed that
the original caste certificate issued to respondent No. 15 was not produced
before SDO. Finally, the Committee opined that cancellation of caste
certificate was inappropriate, hence, the order was set aside and the matter
was remitted back to the SDO concerned for passing fresh order in the light
of the observations made by the Committee.
      34. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed Writ
Petition in the High Court raising the issue of jurisdiction of the Committee
to entertain the application filed by respondent No. 15. Various other grounds
were also raised including that the Committee consisted of many members,
however, the Chairman himself had issued the order. The Single Bench of
the High Court finding merit in the submissions made by appellants No.
1 and 2 set aside the order of the Committee and remitted the matter back
for fresh consideration leaving it open to them to raise the issue regarding
jurisdiction of the Committee.
M/S DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 953
    v. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


       35. 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.
      36. 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.
      37. 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.
       38. As far as the argument regarding jurisdiction of the Committee is
concerned, in our opinion, the issue is not required to be gone into in detail
at this stage, as the High Court opined that the Committee had jurisdiction
to entertain even the issue regarding cancellation of the Caste Certificate
in terms of Section 8A of the 1994 Act. Though it has not specifically been
mentioned in the Section, however, vide amendment carried out in the 1994
Act w.e.f. 15.09.2017, clause (c) in Section 8A was substituted to include
even the cases regarding cancellation of caste certificate. The only issue
required to be considered may be as to whether this amendment should be
considered to be retrospective or retroactive. However, the fact remains
that it being a procedural law and the matter being still pending before the
Committee to be decided on merits after it had opined that the Committee
had jurisdiction to deal with even the cases of caste certificate, it could very
well be examined by the Committee at this stage. In the view of that matter,
it should have been sent back to the Committee only.
     39. 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
954            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 16 S.C.R.


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.
      40. 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.
     41. 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.


Headnotes prepared by:                                         Appeal allowed.
Divya Pandey