STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusAANJANEY ORGANIC HERBAL PVT. LTD

                        (2012] 7 S.C.R. 1148


A               STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
                                   v
            AANJANEY ORGANIC HERBAL PVT. LTD
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 6741-6742 of 2012)

                       SEPTEMBER 20, 2012
B
       [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

        Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955:

c      s.42(b) - Beneficial legislation to protect the interest of the
  members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe - General
  restrictions on sale, gift and bequest of the interest of
  Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, in the whole or part
  of their holding - Object and effect of - Held: The reason for
  such general restrictions is not only to safeguard the interest
0
  of the members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe,
  but also to see that they are not being exploited by the
  members of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe -
  However, at times, s.42(b) may go against the interest of the
  members of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe as well -
E 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 etc., but may not get a better
  competitive price, if the sale is made only among the
  members of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe - Provisions
F have been made in certain legislations enabling the
  members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe to sell
  their lands to members of non-Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
  Tribe, on getting permission from the prescribed authority -
  Such a provision may be sometimes helpful to the members
G of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe to get a better price
  for their land bur it is for the legislature to incorporate
  appropriate provision in the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

         s.42(b) - Transfer of land from a member of Scheduled
H                                 1148
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC 1149
              HERBAL PVT. LTD.

Caste to a juristic person, other than Scheduled Caste -            A
Validity - Expression 'person' used in s.42(b) - Meaning of -
Property purchased by respondent-private company from
members of Scheduled Caste - Challenged as void, in view
of s.42(b) - High Court held that respondent-private company
being a juristic person, the sale effected by a member of           B
Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, which does not have a
caste, is not hit by s. 42 - Held: The reasoning of the High
Court is untenable and gives a wrong interpretation to the
provision - The expression 'person' used in s.42(b) can only
be a natural person and not a juristic person, otherwise, the       C
entire purpose of that section will be defeated - The legislature
clearly wanted to avoid a situation where respondent-company
can purchase land from Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe
and then sell it to a non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe - A thing which cannot be done directly cannot be done        o
tndirectly over-reaching the statutory restriction - The property
purchased by respondent from the members of Scheduled
Caste was void being hit by s.42(b) and was thus rightly denied
mutation in the Revenue records - The State can, therefore,
re-possess the lands and return the lands to the original           E
owners who are members of the Scheduled Caste - General
Clauses Act, 1897 - s.3(42) - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 341 and 342.

    The respondent is a private limited company. It
purchased land belonging to the members of Scheduled F
Caste vide a registered sale deed dated 26.9.2005. An
application was preferred by the respondent before the
Revenue Authorities for mutation of the property. The
same was refused on basis of a circular dated 19.11.2005,
which stated that mutation could be effected only if the G
transfer was between the members of Scheduled Caste/
Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be. Since the
application for mutation was refused, the respondent filed
Writ Petition which was allowed by a single Judge.
                                                                    H
    1150     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an appeal
  before the Division Bench which was dismissed.,

      The question which arose for consideration in the
  instant appeal was whether the transfer of land from a
  member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, other
8 than Scheduled Caste, is void, in view of the provisions
  of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955.

       The respondent-company pleaded that the
  expression 'person', as such, is not defined in the
C Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and, therefore, one has to
  go by the definition of 'person' under the General
  Clauses Act, 1987, and, if so read along with Section 3(42)
  of the General Clauses Act, the expression 'person' used
  in clause (b) of Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act
o takes in a juristic person as well and, therefore, if a
  member of Scheduled Caste sells his property to a juristic
  person, the sale cannot be declared as void, since a
  juristic person has no caste.

       The State Government, on the other hand, contended
E that one cannot read Section 3(42) of the General Clauses
  Act into Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, out
  of context; and that the expression 'person' used in
  Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is a natural
  person and not a juristic person and if the transfer is by
F a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a
  person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or
  Scheduled Tribe, then such a transfer is void under
  Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.

G          Allowing the appeals, the Court

        HELD: 1.1. The Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 is a
    beneficial legislation which takes special care to protect
    the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste and
    Scheduled Tribe. Section 42 provides some general
H
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC 1151
              HERBAL PVT. LTD.

restrictions on sale, gift and bequest of the interest of       A
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, in the whole or
part of their holding. The reason for such general
restrictions is not only to safeguard the interest of the
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, but
also to see that they are not being exploited by the            B
members of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.
[Para 8] [1155-D-E]

     1.2. Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the
President by public notification to specify the castes,         C
races or tribes which shall, for the purpose of the
Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in
relation to that State or Union Territory etc. Article 342 of
the Constitution deals with 'Scheduled Tribes'. The
expressions 'Scheduled Castes' and "Scheduled Tribes',
as found in Section 42(b) of the Act have to be read along      D
with the constitutional provisions and, if so read, the
expression 'who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe' would mean a person other than
those who has been included in the public notification as
per Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The               E
expression 'person' used in Section 42(b) of the Act
therefore can only be a natural person and not a juristic
person, otherwise, the entire purpose of that section will
be defeated. If the contention of the respondent-company
is accepted, it can purchase land from Scheduled Caste          F
I Scheduled Tribe and then sell it to a non-Scheduled
Caste and Schedule Tribe, a situation the legislature
wanted to avoid. A thing which cannot be done directly
can be not done indirectly over-reaching the statutory
restriction. [Paras 12, 13 and 14] [1156-G; 1157-C-G-H;         G
1158-A-B]

    1.3. 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
                                                                H
    1152    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 7 S.C.R


A   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. The Revenue Authorities
    rightly refused the mutation as per circular dated
    9.11.2005. Condition No. 7(2) of the circular was rightly
B   invoked by the Revenue Authorities in denying mutation.
    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
C   in the name of any firm/society/company/legal institution
    wherein a person is office-bearer or member. When the
    above principles are applied to the transfer of land in
    question, it is clear that the sale deed effected on
    26.9.2005 was void and therefore rightly denied mutation
    in Revenue records. Property, therefore purchased by
0
    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
E   members of Scheduled Caste. (Paras 15, 16 and 17]
    (1158-C-E; G-H; 1159-A-C]

       State of Maharashtra v. Indian Oil Corporation (2004) 5
    WLC (Raj.) 703 - referred to.
F
       2. However, at times, Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan
  Tenancy Act may go against the interest of the members
  of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe as well. There may
  be several -situations where they intend to sell the
G 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 I Scheduled Tribe. One has come across
  legislations where provisions are made enabling them to
H
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC 1153
               HERBAL PVT. LTD.

 sell their lands to the members of non-Scheduled Caste/           A
·Scheduled Tribe, on getting permission from the
 prescribed authority. Such a provision may be sometimes
 helpful to the members of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled
 Tribe to get a better price for their land but it is for the
 legislature to incorporate appropriate provision in the           B
 Rajasthan Act. (Para 18) (1159-C-F]

                      Case Law Reference:

     (2004) 5 WLC (Raj.) 703          referred to      Para 4

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
                                                                   c
6741-6742 of 2012.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2008 of the
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DB Civil
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 896 of 2008.                             D
                               WITH
 C.A. No. 6743 of 2012.

     Dr. Manish Singhvi, AAG, lrshad Ahmad for the Appellants.
                                                                   E
     P.P. Choudhary, Rajesh K. Bhardwaj, Dr. Vipin Gupta for
the Respondent.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.                      F

     2. We are, in this case, called upon to decide the question
as to whether the transfer of land from a member of Scheduled
Caste to a juristic person, other than Scheduled Caste, is void,
in view of the provisions of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan        G
Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act').

    3. 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 expression     H
    1154      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   'person' would not take in a 'juristic person' and 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
8
    an earlier judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in State of
    Rajasthan v. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (5) WLC (Raj.) 703,
    which held as follows:

                 "6. It goes without saying that though the Indian Oil
C          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
D          feel that it is not a fit case where the delay of 480 days
           should be condoned. The special leave is rejected."

       5. The judgment in /OC (supra) was challenged before this
  Court by the State of Rajasthan in C.C. No. 19386 of 2010 with
E 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
F   judgment in /OC (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.
G
       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
H Jetasan Patwar area Jetasan Tehsil, Rajasthan, out of which
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC                    1155
   HERBAL PVT. LTD. (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

9.73 bighas belonged to the members of Scheduled Caste.              A
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     B
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          c
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 /OC (supra).

     8. Heard learned counsel on either side. The Act is a
beneficial legislation which takes special care to protect the       D
interest of the members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe.
Section 42 provides some general restrictions on sale, gift and
bequest of the interest of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe, in the whole or part of their holding. The reason for such
general restrictions is not only to safeguard the interest of the    E
members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, but also
to see that they are not being exploited by the members of non-
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The relevant provisions
of Section 42(b) are extracted below for easy reference:
                                                                     F
     "42. General restrictions on sale, gift & bequest - The sale,
     gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenant of his interest in the
     whole or part of his holding shall be void if

     (a) xxxxxxx deleted
                                                                     G
     (b) Such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of a
     Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not a
     member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a member of a
     Scheduled Tribe in favour of a person who is not a member
     of the Scheduled Tribe."                                        H
    1156     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A         9. Shri P.P. Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing
    for the respondent, submitted that the expression 'person', as
    such, is not defined in the Act and, therefore, we have to go by
    the definition of 'person' under the General Clauses Act, 1987.
    The General Clauses Act defines the expression 'person' as
B   follows:

         "3(42). 'Person' shall include any company or association
         of body or individuals, whether incorporated or not."

         10. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that, if it
C   is so read along with Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act,
    the expression 'person' used in clause (b) of Section 42 of the
    Act takes in a juristic person as well and, therefore, if a member
    of Scheduled Caste sells his property to a juristic person, the
    sale cannot be declared as void, since a juristic person has
D   no caste.

          11. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate
    General appearing for the State of Rajasthan, on the other
    hand, contended that we cannot read Section 3(42) of the
E   General Clauses Act into Section 42(b) of the Act, out of
    context. Learned counsel submitted that the expression 'person'
    used in Section 42(b) of the Act is a natural person and not a
    juristic person and if the transfer is by a member of Scheduled
    Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who is not a member of
    Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then such a transfer is
F   void under Section 42 of the Act.

        12. Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President
  by public notification to specify the castes, races or tribes which
  shall, for the purpose of the Constitution, be deemed to be
G Scheduled Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory etc.
  Article 341 of the Constitution reads as follows:

        "341. Scheduled Castes.- (1) The President may with
        respect to any State or Union Territory, and where it is a
        State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
H
  STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC 1157
   HERBAL PVT. LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

    notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of   A
    or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for the
    purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled
    Castes in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the
    case may be.
                                                                    B
    (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
    list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification issued
    under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part of or group
    within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a
    notification issued under the said clause shall not be
    varied by any subsequent notification."
                                                                    c
     13. Article 342 of the Constitution deals with 'Scheduled
Tribes' and reads as follows:

    "342. Scheduled Tribes. - (1) The President may with            0
    respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is a
    State, after consultation with the Governor thereof, by
    public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities
    or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities
    which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed
                                                                    E
    to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State or Union
    Territory, as the case may be.

    (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the
    list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued
    under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or    F
    group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as
    aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall
    not be varied by any subsequent notification."

     14. The expressions 'Scheduled Castes' and "Scheduled          G
Tribes', we find in Section 42(b) of the Act have to be read
along with the constitutional provisions and, if so read, the
expression 'who is not a member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe' would mean a person other than those who
has been included in the public notification as per Articles 341
                                                                    H
    1158    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A and 342 of the Constitution. The expression 'person' used in
  Section 42(b) of the Act therefore can only be a natural person
  and not a juristic person. otherwise. the entire purpose of that
  section will be defeated. If the contention of the company is
  accepted, it can purchase land from Scheduled Caste I
B Scheduled Tribe and then sell it to a non-Scheduled Caste and
  Schedule Tribe, a situation the legislature wanted to avoid. A
  thing which cannot be done directly can be not done indirectly
  over-reaching the statutory restriction.

         15. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasoning of the
C   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.
D
        . 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
E   extracted below for easy reference:

        "7(2). If the khatedar of Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe
        executes sale to such a person of Scheduled Caste I
        Scheduled Tribe who is office-bearer of any firm/society/
        company/legal institution, then the mutation on the basis
F       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."
G
        17. 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
H any firm/society/company/legal institution wherein a person is
   STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. AANJANEY ORGANIC 1159
    HERBAL PVT. LTD. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

office-bearer or member. When we apply the above principles           A
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,            B
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           C
go against the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste I
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         D
price, if the sale is made only among the members of
Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe. We have come across
legislations where provisions are made enabling them to sell
their lands to the members of non-Scheduled Caste I Scheduled
Tribe, on getting permission from the prescribed authority. Such      E
a provision may be sometimes helpful to the members of
Scheduled Caste I Scheduled Tribe to get a better price for
their land but it is for the legislature to incorporate appropriate
provision in the Rajasthan Act.
                                                                      F
     19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the
judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court are set aside. However, there will be no order
as to costs.

8.8.B.                                         Appeals allowed.       G