Holding

Rajaka is a synonym of Dhoba, a Scheduled Caste; therefore the transfers made without the Revenue Officer’s permission are void under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.

Summary

The appellants, Revenue Officer and others, sought restoration of lands sold by two respondents (identified as "Rajaka" in sale deeds) to a Brahmin purchaser. The respondents produced caste certificates and records showing they belong to the "Dhoba" community, a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The sales were challenged under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, which requires prior written permission of the Revenue Officer for any transfer by a Scheduled Caste member to a non‑Scheduled Caste person. The High Court had set aside the Special Officer’s orders, holding that "Rajaka" was not the same as "Dhoba". The Supreme Court held that "Rajaka" is a literal synonym of "Dhoba", which is a Scheduled Caste; consequently the transfers were void under Section 22 and the lands must be restored to the transferors. The Court set aside the High Court judgment and affirmed the Special Officer’s orders.

Issues considered

Whether the caste described as "Rajaka" in the sale deeds falls within the Scheduled Caste "Dhoba" listed in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
Whether a transfer of land by a member of that Scheduled Caste to a non‑Scheduled Caste purchaser without prior written permission of the Revenue Officer is void under Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960.
Whether the burden of proof regarding the validity of such a transfer lies on the transferee under Section 23 of the same Act.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 341
Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960s. 22, s. 23

Subjects

Land reformScheduled CasteOrissa Land Reforms ActSection 22Caste synonymRajakaDhobaRevenue Officer permissionConstitution Article 341

Judgment

REVENUE OFFICER & ORS.
A
v.
PRAFULLA KUMAR PAT! & ORS.

JANUARY 17, 1990

B [B.C. RAY AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.]

Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960: Sections 22 and 23-Land-Sale
by a Scheduled Caste in favour of non-Scheduled Caste-Requisite
permission from Revenue Officer not obtained-Validity of.

Constitution of India, 1950: Article 341-The Constitution
C Scheduled Castesorder, 1950-Schedule-Part Xlll-ltem No. 26-
'Rajaka' Caste-Whether 'Scheduled Caste' Caste not specified in the
Lisi-Effect of-Duty of Court to enquire. ,..

Words and Phrases: 'Rajaka'-Meaning of.
D
Respondent No. 2, a scheduled caste, filed a case for restoration of
lands sold to respondent NC1s. 1, 3 and 4, non scheduled castes, on the
ground that the sale was in violation of section 22 of the Orissa Land
Reforms Act, 1960 as the requisite permission of the Revenue Officer J._
was not obtained. In the sale deed the transferor-Respondent was ~
E described as 'Rajaka' while in the caste certificate he was mentioned as
'Dhoba'. The Revenue Officer rejected the case.

Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal which was allowed by the Addi-
tional District Magistrate. Against the order of Additional Distric\
Magistrate a revision was preferred by respondent No. 1 which was
F dismissed by the Special Officer, Land Reforms by holding that merely
because the word 'Rajaka' does not find mention in the Scheduled Caste
Order, 1950 does not exclucle it from the purview of such an order.

In the connected app,,al respondent No. 5 filed a case for restora-
tion of land sold to respondent No. l which was allowed by the Revenue
G Officer. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 was dismissed by the
Additional District Magistrate. A Revision preferred by Respondent
No. l was also dismissed by the Special Officer Land Reforms.

Respondent No. 1 filed writ petitio)lS in the High Court which
quashed the orders made by the Special Officer, holding that the
H Revenue Authorities committed a serious eiror of law in holding that

88

I \
REVENUE OFFICER v. P.K. PAT! 89

'Rajaka' caste was included within the notified caste/community of A
'Dhoba'.

In these appeals it was contended on behalf of transferee-res-
pondents that the Caste 'Rajaka' mentioned in the sale deeds cannot be
taken to be synonym of caste 'Dhoba' mentioned in Item 26 of the List
in Scheduled Castes Order, 1950. B

Allowing the appeals, this Court,

HELD: I. Though the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 i.e. the trans-
ferors mentioned in the deeds of transfer their caste as 'Rajaka' there is
no such caste mentioned in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,
1950. In such circumstances, it. is necessary and also incumbent on the c
Court to consider as to what caste they belong to. [96B I
) B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa, [1965] l S.C.R. 316,
followed.
D
2. 'Rajaka' is the literal synonym for the word 'Dhoba' and ac-
cording to the Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasakosh a which is a recognised
authority, the definition of 'Dhoba' is Rajaka-washerman. Therefore
the submission that the caste 'Rajaka' is differeni from caste 'Dhoba' is
not at all sustainable. [96AI
E
3. In the record of rights as well as the various certificates issued

- by the revenue authorities and the local M.L.As the transferors have
been described as belonging to 'Dhoba' community. The irresistible
conclusion that follows is that the respondent-transferors belong
to 'Dhoba' caste which is one of the Scheduled Caste ln the State of
Orissa. l96H, 97 AJ F

3.1 Therefore the transfers made by respondent Nos . 2 and 5 in
favour of respondent No. 1, who admittedly belongs to Brabmin caste,
are hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act,
1960 in as much as the previous permission in writing of the Revenue
Officer had not been obtained to the alleged transfers. [95C] G

[The transferee-respondents directed to restore the lands in
question to the possession of the transferor-respondents forthwith.] [97C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
1052-53 of 1990. H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.1986 of the Orissa High
Court in OJC. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983.
'
A.K. Panda for the Appellants.

Kundan Lal Jagga and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
B
1be following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

Special leave granted. Agruments heard.
c These two appeals on special leave arise out of the common
judgment of the High Court of Orissa made in O.J.C. 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 O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of
D 1982 as well as O.L.R. No. 142 of 1982.

The matrix of the case in O.J.C. No. 1007 of 1983 is that on July
30, I9T7, the respondent No. 2, Paramanand Sethi filed case No. 85 of
1977 under section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, against S/Shri
B. Mohapatra, Prafulla Kumar Pati and Gadadhar Pati (Respondent
E Nos. 1, 3 and 4) for restoration of lands sold to respondent Nos. 1, 3.
and 4 on the ground thal respondent No. 2 was a member of the
Scheduled Caste (Dhoba Community) and the sales in question were
hit by the provisions cont?ined in section 22 of the Orissa Land
Reforms Act, 1960. The r·espondent No. 2 filed a caste certificate of
the Additional Tehasildar, Betanoti wherein the respondent No. 2 was
F 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
G Sethi also filed 0.L.R. Mis.:. Case No. 21of1979 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 permis-
sion of the Revenue Officer as mandatorily required under the provi-
sions of the said Act. She produced the Caste certificate issued by tb_e
H Tehasildar, Betanoti which showed that she belonged to 'Dhoba' caste
REVENUE OFFICER v. P.K. PAT! 91

which is recognised as a scheduled caste. She further filed two caste
certificates issued by the two M.L.As. which certified that she A
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. 2,
Paramanand Sethi. The respondent No. 2 filed O.L.R. Appeal No. 89 B
of 1979 in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj and
_,... the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated December 22,
~ 1980. The Additional District Magistrate while allowing the appeal
observed as follows:

"It is a known fact that there is no community called
• 'Rajaka' community which is different from Dhoba com- c
munity. 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 Addi. Tehasildar, Betanoti and the entry in
the R.O.R. confirm the assertion of the petitioner that he D
is a Dhoba by caste. In the circumstances, the petitioner
must be held to be a S.C. person and for that matter, his
brothers and mother are also the members of a S.C.
According to Section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act
previous permisssion from the Revenue Officer should
have been obtained by them before transferring their lands E
to the respondents. Since this statutory requirement 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. I filed
0.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 before the Special Officer, Land F
\ Reforms, Central Division, Cuttack. The said Revision Case was dis-
missed vide judgment and order dated March 4, 1983 on the finding
that there were records of competent authorities like Addi. Tehasil-
dar, Betanoti and the record of rights showing that the caste of
Paramanand Sethi is 'Dhoba'. It has been further observed that:
G
"As per the Oriya Bhasakosha the definition of 'Dhoba' is
'Rajaka-Washerman'. Hence, there is no conflict regard·
ing what is the meaning of 'Rajaka'. It is merely-a synonym
of the word 'Dhoba'. The Sanskrit for 'Dhoba' is 'Rajaka'.
Just because the word 'Rajaka' does not find mention in
the Presidential Order does not exclude it from the purview H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

of such an order. 'Dhobas' are Scheduled Castes and
A
'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."
B
O.L.R. Misc. Case No. 21of1979 filed by the resp~ndent No. 5,
Smt. Nilamani Sethi was allowed vide order dated March 10, 1980 by
the Revenue Officer directing the restoration of the suit lands to
respondent No. 5 under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act.
The respondent No. 1 filed O.L.R. Appeal No. 42 of 1980 in the Court
of Additional District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. The said appeal was
c dismissed 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
D 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 therefore, be restored to the possession of
the respondent No. 5.
E
Against this order, respondent No. 1 filed O.L.R. Revision No.
142 of 1982 before the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Central Divi-
sion, Cuttack and the same was dismissed vi de judgment and order
dated February 2, 1983.
~
F The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed two writ petitions called !
0.J.C. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983 against the judgments and orders J
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
G Court, Orissa set aside and quashed the judgments and orders passed
by the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Central Division, Cuttack and
allowed the wr:it 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
H that the Revenue Authorities have committed a serious
REVENUE OFFICER v. P.K. PAT! 93

error of law in coming to the conclusion that 'Rajaka' caMe A
was included within the notified caste/community of
'Dhoba' as their nature of work was'Silnilar: Although it is
unnecessary 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
B
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 transferors belonged to the
scheduled caste-Dhoba Community as mentioned in item No. 26 of C
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) D
Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by a raiyat, be-
longing to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void except.where it
is in favour of-

(a) a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe; or
E
(b) a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe whe1
such transfer is made with the previous permission in writ-
ing of the Revenue Officer:

Provided that in case of a transfeI by sale the Revenue
Officer shall not grant such permission unless he is F
satisfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe
willing to pay the market price for the land is not avail-
able, and in case of a gift unless he is satisfied about the
bona /ides thereof.

(2) The State Government may havi!l5 regard to the law G
and custom applicable to any area prior to the date of
commencement of this Act by notification direct that the
restrictions provided in sub-S. (I) shall not apply to lands
situated in such area or belonging to any particular tribe
throughout the State or in any part of it.
H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990) 1 S.C.R.

(3) Except with th<: written permission of the Revenue
A
Officer, 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
B to be registered und<:r the provisions of Cl. (a) to Cl. (e) of '
sub-S. (1) of S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (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
""..'
registering officer appointed under that Act shall register
any such document, unless such document is accompanied
c 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
D thereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Castes.

'(6) Nothing in this section shall apply

(a) to any sale in exf:cution of a money decree passed, or
to any transfer by way of mortgage executed, in favour of
E 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

F
within a Scheduled Area.

Section 23: Effect of transfer in contravention of S. 22. ( 1)
+
I

In the case of any transfer in contravention of the provi-
sions of sub-S. (1) of S. 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
H not belonging to the Scheduled Tribe without obtaining the-previous
REVENUE OFFICER v. P.K. PAT! 95

permission in writing of the Revenue Officer to such (ransfer. Sub- A
section 5 of the said section further provides that the provisions con-
tained in sub-section 1 to 4 shall apply, mutatis mutandis to the trans-
fer of a holding or part thereof a raiy_at 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, notwithstanding anything B
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 c
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 Scheduled
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 D.
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 M.L.As. clearly established that
the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 belong to Dhoba community and as such E
they are Scheduled Castes. Much argument 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 mentfoned in
the sale deeds did not find place in the List and instead the Caste
'Dhoba' appears ill Item 26 of the List of Scheduled Castes in the State
of Orissa under the Constitution of Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 as F
\. made under Article 341 of the Constitution 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.
G
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 recorded also as :Dhoba' which undoubtedly is a Schedulecl H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 1 S.C.R.

A Caste under the Scheduled Castes Order, 1950 issued under the provi-
sions 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 recog-
nised authority, the definition of 'Dhoba' is Rajaka-washerman. As
such, the submission that the caste 'Rajaka' is different from caste
B 'Dhoba' is not at all sustainable. It is pertinent to refer in this connec-
tion to the observations of the Supreme Court in B. Basavalingappa v.
D. Munichinnappa,--[1965] 1 SCR 316 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
c 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
O in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. The diffi-
cu1ty 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
E 1956 and therefore it must be accepted that there was some
caste which the President intended to include after consul-
tation 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
F State as it existed before 1956. But when it is not disputed
that there was no cast<: 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."

0 In the instant case, referring to this decision even though the
respondent Nos. 2 and 5 i.e. 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 respon-
Ii dent Nos. 2 and 5 belong to. Moreover, considering the record of
REVENUE OFFICER v. P.K. PAT! 97

rights as well as the various certificates issued by the revenue A
authorities and the local M.L.As. referred to hereinbefore wherein the
transferors have been described as belonging to 'Dhoba' community,
the irresistible conclusion that follows is that the respondents-trans-
ferors belong to 'Dhoba' caste which is one of the Scheduled Caste in
the State of Orissa.
B
In the premises aforesaid the judgment and order of the High
Court referred to in O.J.C. 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
O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 and O.L.R. No. 142 of 1982. The
respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are directed to restore the lands in question C
to the possession of the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 forthwith. The ap-
peals are allowed without any order as to costs.

·T.N.A. Appeals allowed.