{"id":257289,"date":"1970-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1970-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970"},"modified":"2016-02-09T20:01:59","modified_gmt":"2016-02-09T14:31:59","slug":"bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970","title":{"rendered":"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2533, 1971 SCR (1) 804<\/div>\n
Author: S C.<\/div>\n
Bench: Shah, J.C.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHAIYA RAM MUNDA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nANIRUDH PATAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n14\/08\/1970\n\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBENCH:\nSHAH, J.C.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2533\t\t  1971 SCR  (1) 804\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  (Scheduled Tribes)order, 1950, Part  III--When\nevidence  admissible  for finding the scope of an  entry  in\nOrder--Some  sub-tribes\t under\tan  entry  included--Whether\nother  sub-tribes  deemed excluded--Effect of  admission  by\nmember\tof Scheduled Tribe that he was not a member  of\t the\ntribe.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIn  Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled  Tribes)  Order.\n1950, issued by the President of India under Art. 342<\/a>, Munda\nis specified as a scheduled tribe, but not Patar.  The first\nrespondent  was\t a Patar.  He was declared  elected  to\t the\nBihar Legislative Assembly from a scheduled tribes constitu-\nency.\tThe  appellant, who was an  unsuccessful  candidate,\nfiled an election petition for setting aside the election on\nthe  ground that the first respondent was not a member of  a\nscheduled  tribe.   The High Court  dismissed  the  petition\nholding that the first respondent was a Munda and was  hence\na member of a scheduled tribe.\nIn appeal to this Court,\nHELD:\t  (1)  Evidence\t is admissible for  the\t purpose  of\nshowing what an entry\t in   the  Presidential\t Order\t was\nintended to mean, but not so as to modify    the  order\t  by\nincluding  other tribes.  Since the first respondent's\tcase\nwas  not  that\tPatars\tare a  distinct\t community  who\t are\nregarded as Mundas but that Patars are Mundas, evidence\t may\nbe given to show that the entry Munda includes Patars.\t[814\nB-C; 815 A]\n     B.\t Basavalingappa\t v. Munichinnappa<\/a>, [1965]  1  S.C.R.\n316,  Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh & Ors<\/a>. [1965]  2  S.C.R.\n877, Laxman Siddappa Naik v.  Kattimani Chaniappa Jamappanna\nJUDGMENT<\/a>:\n<\/pre>\n
C.A.No. 1622\/67 dt. 21-5-1968, referred to.
\n(2)  Whether a particular person is a member of a  scheduled
\ntribe  so  declared  by\t the  President\t is essentially\t a
\nquestion of law.  Though an admission made by him  expressly
\nor  by\timplication that he is not a member of\ta  scheduled
\ntribe is evidence against him. in an election petition,\t the
\nevidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C]
\n(3)  If a member of a scheduled tribe, transfers property by
\na  deed in which he describes himself to be not a member  of
\nthe   scheduled\t  tribe\t in  order  to\tavoid\trefusal\t  of
\nregistration under s. 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, he
\nwill  not,  on\tthat account, be disentitled  to  claim\t the
\nstatus\tof  a member of scheduled tribe.  It  could  not  be
\nsaid,  on that ground alone, that the transferor was  not  a
\nmember of a scheduled tribe or was estopped from setting  up
\nthat status. [808 D-E]
\n(4)  The evidence in the case established that Patars are  a
\nsub-tribe  of  Mundas and that they are not  different\tfrom
\nMundas. [813 F-G]
\n(5)  If Patars are Mundas, because some sub-tribes of Mundas
\narc
\n805<\/span>
\nenumerated in the Presidential Order and others are not,  no
\ninference  will\t arise\tthat those not\tenumerated  are\t not
\nMundas.\t   Merely  because  Patars  are\t  not\tspecifically
\nmentioned in the Presidential order, they cannot be on\tthat
\naccount alone be excluded from the general heading of Munda.
\n[813 G-H]<\/p>\n
&
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2039 of 1969.
\nAppeal\tunder s. 116-A<\/a> of the Representation of\t the  People
\nAct, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 19,\t1969
\nof the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.9 of 1969.
\nD.   Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant.
\nK.   K.\t Sinha,\t S.  Thakur Prasad and\tS.  S.\tJauhar,\t for
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nShah,  J. At the  “mid-term elections” held in January\t1969
\nAnirudh\t Patar\t(the  1st respondent  in  this\tappeal)\t was
\ndeclared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from\t the
\nTamar  Assembly\t Constituency No.  296\t(Scheduled  Tribes).
\nBhaiya Ram Munda-an unsuccessful candidate at the  election-
\napplied\t to  the High Court of Patna for  an  order  setting
\naside  the election on the plea that the 1st respondent\t was
\nnot  a member of a scheduled tribe and was on that  account
\nnot qualified under s. 5<\/a> of the Representation of the People
\nAct.  1951  to be chosen to fill a seat in  the\t Legislative
\nAssembly of Bihar from a reserved constituency for scheduled
\ntribes.\t The High Court dismissed the petition holding\tthat
\nthe 1st respondent was a member of a Scheduled Tribe  called
\n“Munda” specified in Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled
\nTribes) Order,- 1950 issued in exercise of the powers  under
\nArt. 342<\/a> of the Constitution.  Bhaiya Ram Munda has appealed
\nto  this Court under s. II 6A of the Representation  of\t the
\nPeople Act<\/a>, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 5<\/a>  of the Representation of the  People  Act,\t1951
\nprovides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “A person shall not be qualified to be chosen
\n\t      to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly  of
\n\t      a State–unless–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   in\tthe case of a seat reserved for\t the
\n\t      Scheduled\t Castes or for the Scheduled  Tribes
\n\t      of that State, he is a member of any, of those
\n\t      castes  or of these tribes, as, the  case\t may
\n\t      be, and is an
\n\t      806<\/span>
\n\t      elector for any Assembly constituency in\tthat
\n\t      State;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      Article 342<\/a> of the Constitution, insofar as it
\n\t      is relevant, provides
\n\t      “(1)  The\t President may with respect  to\t any
\n\t      State or Union territory,….. by public noti-
\n\t      fication,\t  specify  the\ttribes\t or   tribal
\n\t      communities  Or  parts  of  or  groups  within
\n\t      tribes  or tribal communities which shall\t for
\n\t      the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to
\n\t      be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that  State
\n\t      or Union Territory, as the case may be.
\n\t      (2)   Parliament\tmay  be law  include  in  or
\n\t      exclude  from  the list  of  Scheduled  Tribes
\n\t      specified\t in  a\tnotification  issued   under
\n\t      clause  (1) any tribe or tribal  community  or
\n\t      part  of or group within any tribe  or  tribal
\n\t      community,    but\t  save\t as   aforesaid\t   a
\n\t      notification  issued  under  the\tsaid  clause
\n\t      shall   not  be  varied  by   any\t  subsequent
\n\t      notification.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  exercise of the powers conferred  by\tArt.
\n\t      342<\/a>, the President issued an Order called\t the
\n\t      Constitution  (Scheduled Tribes)\tOrder,\t1950
\n\t      which by the second clause provided :
\n\t      The tribes or tribal communities, or parts of.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      or    groups   within,   tribes\tor    tribal
\n\t      communities-specified in Parts I to XII of the
\n\t      Scheduled to this Order shall, in relation  to
\n\t      the  States to which those Parts\trespectively
\n\t      relate,  be deemed to be Scheduled  Tribes  so
\n\t      far as regards members thereof resident in the
\n\t      localities  specified  in\t relation  to\tthem
\n\t      respectively   in\t  those\t  Parts\t  of\tthat
\n\t      Schedule.,,
\nIn the Schedule the names of certain tribes are set out, and
\nin  Part  III  under the heading the  State  of\t Bihar,\t are
\ndesignated  certain tribes.  The tribes designated  in\tPart
\nIII  are deemed to be Scheduled Tribes throughout the  State
\nof  Bihar.  Mundas does but Patar does not occur in Part  M.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  1st  respondent contended that Patars are\tMundas,\t and
\nthat  it is only non-Mundas who call the  various  exogenous
\ngroups\tbelonging  to  the  tribes  residing  generally\t  in
\nSingbhum  and  the adjacent area and belonging\tto  various
\nkilis  as Mundas, or Pator Mundas, Mahal;  Mundas,  Tamarks,
\nBunduars  and Marang Mundas and others.\t He  contended\tthat
\nhe  does not cease to be a Munda merely because\t his  family
\nname is Patar.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant raised two arguments in support of his  peti-
\ntion-(1) that Patars are not Mundas and (2) that even if
\n807<\/span>
\npatars\tare  Mundas,  since the name of\t Patar\thas  not  be
\nincluded in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950,
\nPart III applicable to Bihar, he cannot be chosen to sit  in
\nthe  Assembly  from  the  reserved  constituency  by  merely
\ncalling himself a Munda.\n<\/p>\n
Considerable  evidence\toral and  documentary  was  tendered
\nbefore\tthe  High  Court.   In\tsupport\t of  his’  case\t the
\nappellant.  relied upon-(1) a sale deed executed by the\t 1st
\nrespondent  on January 11, 1969 which recited that  the\t 1st
\nrespondent  did\t not  claim  the status of  a  member  of  a
\nScheduled Tribe; (2) entries in the revenue records and\t (3)
\noral  evidence\tof  witnesses  who  deposed  that  the\t 1st
\nrespondent was not a Munda.\n<\/p>\n
In support of his case the 1st respondent relied upon-(1)  a
\njudgment  of the High Court of Patna declaring\tthat  Patars
\nare Mundas; (2) Khatian entries in which Patars were entered
\nas  Mundas (3) a certificate dated July 15, 1941  given\t by
\nRai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy (many years before the date on
\nwhich  the dispute arose certifying that one  Kshetra  Mohan
\nPatar  son of Gobardhan Patar of village Kumar\tHapa,  than&
\nTamar, District Ranchi belonged to the Patar (Munda)  tribe;
\nand  (4)  oral testimony of the witnesses who  deposed\tthat
\nthe, 1st respondent was a Munda.\n<\/p>\n
The name of the first respondent was entered in the  voters’
\nlist as\t a  member  of\ta  Scheduled  Tribe.   The   first
\nrespondent  stood as a candidate for election to  the  Bihar
\nState Legislative Assembly in 1962, and was elected from the
\nScheduled  Tribe constituency.\tNomination was filed by\t him
\nat  that  election  as\ta Patar.   In  1967  too  the  first
\nrespondent stood from the Tamar Scheduled Tribe Constituency
\nfor  election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly but  he\t was
\ndefeated.   It also appears from the record that Mr.  Jaipal
\nSingh  who was also a Patar was elected as a member  of\t the
\nParliament  to\ta reserved seat from a constituency  in\t the
\nBihar State, was a member of the Scheduled Tribe.
\nThe  first question to be determined is whether\t Patars\t are
\nnot  Mundas : The appellant placed strong reliance  upon a
\nsale  deed executed by the first respondent can January\t 11,
\n1969 (few days before the elections) conveying property\t and
\ndeclaring therein that the first respondent was not a member
\nof any Scheduled Caste or backward community.  Under s.\t 46<\/a>
\nof,  the  Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act VT of 1908\twithout\t the
\nsanction  of  the  Deputy Commissioner the  members  of\t the
\nScheduled Tribes cannot transfer their lands.  It is  common
\nground\tthat to the area of the Tamar Constituency that\t Act
\napplied.   A  deed  evidencing sale of\tland  presented\t for
\nregistration by a member of a scheduled Tribe
\n808<\/span>
\ncould  not be registered unless the sale was  sanctioned  by
\nthe Deputy Commissioner.  According to the first  respondent
\nit  was the vender who inserted into the deed the  statement
\nin   order  to\tavoid  refusal\tof  )registration   by\t the
\nauthorities.  Assuming that the statement was  incorporated
\nin  the\t deed with the consent of the  first  respondent  no
\nestoppel arises against him.  Whether a particular person is
\na  member of a Scheduled Tribe so declared by the  President
\nunder Art. 342<\/a> of the Constitution is essentially a question
\nof  law.   Though an admission made by him expressly  or  by
\nimplication that he is not a member-of a Scheduled Tribe  is
\nevidence  against him in an election petition, the  evidence
\nis not conclusive.\n<\/p>\n
Khatian entries Exts.  1\/a and 1\/b show that sale deeds exe-
\ncuted  by Patars were admitted to registration and  mutation
\nentries were posted pursuant thereto.  There is no  evidence
\nwhether\t in  respect of those sale beads permission  of\t the
\nDeputy Commissioner was taken before they were executed.  It
\nis  not\t possible  to infer from the  revenue  entries\tthat
\nsanction of the Deputy Commissioner was not obtained or that
\nPatars\tare  not  Mundas.   Granting  that  the\t prohibition
\ncontained  in  S. 46 of the Chhota Nagpur  Tenancy  Act\t was
\nviolated  by a member of a Scheduled Tribe, he will  not  on
\nthat account be disentitled to claim the status of a member
\nof a schedule tribe.  The transactions of sale may be  void,
\nbut  it cannot be said, relying.on that ground\talone,\tthat
\nthe  transferor was not member of a Scheduled Tribe  or\t was
\nestopped  from setting up that status.\tExts. 1(g) and\t1(h)
\nare sale deeds executed by Mundas and sanction of the Deputy
\nCommissioner  was  obtained  before execution  of  the\tsale
\ndeeds.\t Exhibits  4 and 4 (a) are certified copies  of\t two
\nraiyat, Khatians in which the caste of the tenants who\twere
\nPatars\tis  mentioned  as  Patar,  but\tfrom  that  also  no
\ninference arises that they are a tribe distinct from Mundas.
\nThe oral evidence led on behalf of the appellant is  uncon-
\nvincing.   Faud Singh Munda P.W. I asserted that Patras\t are
\nnot  a branch of the Munda Tribe, but they are a  separate
\ncaste.\tAccording to him Patars could convey. their property
\nwithout\t the  permission of the\t Deputy\t Commissioner,\tthat
\nPahans\tperform\t ceremonies in the families of\tMundas,\t but
\nBrahmins assisted by barbers perform religious ceremonies in
\nthe  families  of Patars, that Mundas do not offer  Find  in
\nShradh,\t Patars do offer; that the Sun is the supreme  deity
\nfor  the  Mundas but Patars worship Rama and  Krishna; and
\nthat  Mundas celebrate Sarbul festival, but Patars  do\tnot.
\nIn  cross-examination he stated that he has  never  attended
\nany  Patar marriage ceremony or Shradh and that he  had\t not
\nseen  any Patar. offering any Find but had only heard  about
\nit, The witness was unable to say how Patars
\n809<\/span>
\nperformed  the\tpuja.  It  appeared that  he  had  not\tmuch
\ninformation even about Munda customs and ceremonies.
\nThe statement of Gandharb Singh Munda P.W. 2 in examination-
\nin-chief  was similar to the testimony of P.W. 1  In  cross-
\nexamination  the witness stated that Mundas were (not  Gonds
\nbut  they  were\t “a separate caste” and that  he  had  never
\nattended a Patar marriage ceremony and was never invited  by
\nany  Patar  on the occasion of Shradh.\tHe admitted  ”\tthat
\nnon-Mundas  also  celebrated Sarbul.  But according  to\t him
\nPatars from other villages came to worship goddess Diuri  of
\nhis  village  which  was worshiped by Mundas.\tHe  did\t not
\nappear to be competent to speak about the customs and usages
\nof  Patars  as\tdistinguished from  those  of  Mundas.\t The
\nwitness\t did  not know that those who are  generally  called
\nMundas are in reality Komput Mundas.\n<\/p>\n
Sudhir Kumar Choudhury P.W. 4 (who is a Brahmin) stated that
\nthere  were  Mundas in Tamar villages; that  his  next\tdoor
\nneighbor  was  a  Munda; and, that  Brahmins  performed\t the
\nmarriage  and Shradh in the families of Mundas.\t  He  stated
\nthat  all  the\tdeities\t who are  worshiped  by\t Hindus\t are
\nworshiped  “in the family of the first respondent” and\tthat
\nmarriage  and Shradh ceremonies are performed in the  family
\nof  the\t first\trespondent  in the  same  way  as  they\t are
\nperformed  in Hindu families.  The witness admitted that  he
\nhad not personally seen the performance of Puja of Rama and
\nKrishna\t in  the house of the first  respondent.   The\tHigh
\nCourt observed that the answers given by the witness in\t his
\ncross-examination indicated that he had no familiarity\twith
\nthe customs of Mundas.\n<\/p>\n
Abhimanyu  Singh Munda P.W. 5 stated that the first  respon-
\ndent  was a Patar by caste and the customs of  marriage\t and
\nShradh\tamongst\t the Mundas and Patars were  different.\t  In
\ncross-examination he said that in the area within the Tamar
\nPolice\tStation\t Mundas speak Mundari whereas  Patars  speak
\nPanch Pargania.\t This, was however, plainly contrary to what
\nthe other witnesses had stated.\t He said that there was only
\none family of Patars in his village; that he was invited  by
\nthat  family on the occasions of marriage and  Shradh, and
\nthat  he did not know the Gotra of that family.\t He  further
\nstated that all the scheduled tribes of Chhota Nagpur  drink
\nHanria but the witness denied that the Patars drink  Hanria.
\nIn the\tview of the High Court, reliance could not be placed
\nupon  the  testimony of this witness.  We see no  reason  to
\ndisagree with it.\n<\/p>\n
P.W.  6\t is  the appellant himself.  He\t repeated  what\t was
\nstated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. He asserted that Patars
\ndo  not\t belong to a Scheduled Tribe, He  admitted  however
\nthat
\n810<\/span>
\nhe had never attended any ceremony of marriage or Shradh  or
\nany other function in a Patar family and that he could\tnot,
\ncompetently  speak about the ceremonial customs\t of  Patars.
\nHe also denied that the son of P.W. I was an employee of the
\nSeva Mandal, a fact which was admitted by P.W. 1.
\nThe first respondent has relied in support of his case\tupon
\nExts.\tA,, B, B\/1 & C. Exhibit A is the certificate  issued
\nby  Rai\t Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy  certifying\tone  Kshetra
\nMohan  Patar  as  belonging  to\t the  Patar  (Munda)  tribe.
\nExhibits B and B\/ 1 are entries in the Khatian and Ext.\t  C
\nis  the judgment delivered by Ahmad, J., of the\t Patna\tHigh
\nCourt  in  a case relating to the acceptance  of  Patars  as
\nMundas.\n<\/p>\n
Kshetra\t Mohan Patar R.W. I stated that there  were  several
\nsects  amongst the Mundas and Patar was one of\tsuch  sects.
\nThe witness further stated that Pahans Officiate as  priests
\nat  the\t time of marriage in the families of  all  the\tsub-
\ncastes\tof Mundas and Brahmins do not officiate as  priests
\non  such occasions; that Patars also bury the bones of\tsuch
\ndead  bodies  which are burnt at a place  called  Susan\t or
\nHargaddi  and  that  they also worship\tthe  Sun  and  other
\ndeities worshiped by Mundas.  He also spoke about the inter-
\nmarriages  between  Patars, Bhumijs and Mahalis\t which\twere
\nsub-castes of Mundas.\n<\/p>\n
Daroo  Pahan R.W. 2 is not a Patar but a Munda.\t  He  stated
\nthat  Khangars\tand Patars are sub-castes of  Mundas,  that
\nsome boys of Mundas of his village had married Patar  girls,
\nthat  those boys with their Patar wives were living  in\t his
\nvillage.   He  also  said that Puja  was  performed  by\t his
\nbrother, when Barats of Mundas returned to the village\twith
\nPatar wives.  He gave details about the names of some of the
\nPatar girls married to Munda boys in his village.
\nJamir  Munda R.W. 3 said that he had married a\tPatar  girl;
\nand  that  there  were\ttwo  main  branches’  of  Mundas-one
\nconsisting  of\tPatars, Khangars and Mahalis and  the  other
\nconsisting  of Babuans.\t Mundas and Kol Mundas,\t and  except
\nBabuans others inter-married among themselves.\tHe stated in
\ncross-examination  that\t Patar is merely a title and  not  a
\nsub-caste.\n<\/p>\n
Khudi  Ram  Munda  R.W. 4 stated that there  were  two\tmain
\nbranches   of  Mundas-one  consisting  of  Mundas,   Patars,
\nKhangars  and Mahalis. and the other consisting of  Mankis,
\nThakurs\t Bahuans  and Mundaris; that  Pahans  officiated  as
\npriests on the occasion of marriages in the family of Patars
\nand  Patars also Derfomed Sarna Pula and  celebrated  Sarbul
\nfestival;  that\t his nephew had married the  daughter  of  a
\nPatar and-that his
\n811<\/span>
\npresent\t wife  was also a Patar.   In  cross-examination  he
\nadmitted that those Patars who were rich called Brahmins  to
\nperform Puja etc. on ceremonial occasions.
\nRam Jatan Patar R.W. 5 stated that in the Khatian the  caste
\nof  his\t father\t was entered as Patar  Munda.\tHe  further
\nstated\tthat  the daughter of his nephew  Satya\t Narain\t was
\nmarried with the nephew of Khudi Ram Munda.
\nRaghunath  Munda R.W. 6 stated that there were two  branches
\nof  Mundas-Mundas and Patar Mundas.  He further stated\tthat
\nthe customs followed by Patars, on the occasion of marriages
\nin their families were the same as followed by Mundas;\tthat
\nPatars\tas  well as Mundas buried the bones of the  dead  at
\nSasandril,  that Pahans generally officiated as\t priests  at
\nthe  ceremony of marriage among Mundas and Patars but  those
\nwho were rich also called Brahmins to officiate as  priests
\non  those  occasions; that the main festivals of  Mundas  as
\nwell  as Patars were Sarbul and Buru Puja; and\tthat  Mundas
\nand Parars both spoke Mundari.\n<\/p>\n
Bahadur Patar R.W. 7 gave similar testimony.
\nHarihar\t Singh\tMunda  R.W. 9  supported  the  testimony  of
\nwitnesses  R.Ws. 3 & 4. He spoke about the various sects  of
\nthe  Mundas  and also about the prevalence of  some  customs
\nrelating  to  marriages and other ceremonies of\t Patars\t and
\nMundas.\n<\/p>\n
Kumar  Amarendra  Nath Sah Deo R.W. 10 stated  that  in\t the
\nmarriages  in  the families of Mundas and  Patars  generally
\nPahans officiated as priests; that those who were rich\talso
\ninvited\t Brahmin’s  on the occasion and\t there\twere  inter-
\nmarriages  between Patars and other branches of the  Mundas.
\nHe  also spoke about the custom of burying the bones of\t the
\ndeceased members in the families of Patars.
\nThe  first  respondent\tR.W. II stated\tthat  his  name\t was
\nentered\t in the voters’ list prepared in 1960, that  he\t was
\nelected\t to  the  Bihar State Legislative  Assembly  in\t the
\nelections held in 1962 and that he lost in the elections  of
\n1967.  He also corroborated the statements of his  witnesses
\nrelating  to  the customs of Mundas and’ has  asserted\tthat
\nPatars are Mundas.\n<\/p>\n
Dr.  Sachchidananda R.W. 8 is a renewed anthropologist.\t  He
\nhas made a study of tribal culture in Bihar and has  written
\nseveral\t books\ton anthropology.  In his book  “Profiles  of
\nTribal\tCulture in Bihar” and in his articles on  Mundas  in
\nBihar  he has stated that Patars are Mundas.   He  confirmed
\nthat opinion on the basis of anthropological studies,
\n812<\/span>
\nDr,  Sarat Chandra Roy in his publication “Mundas  and\tthis
\nCountry” at p. 400 has observed :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  Munda  tribe  is divided  into  a  large
\n\t      number  of  exogamous  groups  called   kilis.
\n\t      According to Munda tradition, all the  members
\n\t      of the same kili are descended from one common
\n\t      ancestor.\t  But  such a tradition may  not  be
\n\t      quite  correct  with regard  to  the  original
\n\t      kilis.  Though exogamous as regards the kilis,
\n\t      the  Mundas are endogamous so  far  as  other
\n\t      tribes are concerned.  Thus, there can now  be
\n\t      no valid marriages, according to Munda custom,
\n\t      between  a Munda and the member of  any  other
\n\t      Kolarian’ tribe, such as the Santals,
\n\t      Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy has then referred to the
\n\t      various  sub-tribes  known  as  Bhumij-Mundas,
\n\t      Khangars and observed
\n\t      “In  Parganas Bundu and Tamar,  these  Khangar
\n\t      Mundas are known as Patar Mundas, in parts  of
\n\t      Kunti  Thana as Mahli Mundas, in Singbhum as
\n\t      Tamarias,\t in  Gangpur  as  Bunduars  and\t  in
\n\t      Pargana  Balkaddi by the significant  name  of
\n\t      Marang Mundas.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In  his “Profiles of Tribal Culture in  Bihar”
\n\t      Dr. Sachchidananda has said at p. 40 :
\n\t      “The  entire Munda tribe consists of an  elder
\n\t      and younger branch, the Mahali Mundako and the
\n\t      Kompat  Mundako respectively.  The former\t are
\n\t      found  mainly in Tamar Pargana of\t the  Ranchi
\n\t      District\t and  are  also\t known as   Patar.
\n\t      Ordinarily  Munda\t or those belonging  to\t the
\n\t      younger  branch  form the bulk  of  the  Munda
\n\t      population.     Both   these   branches\t are
\n\t      endogamous.    The   former   are\t  considered
\n\t      socially inferior to the latter.”
\n\t      The author then stated at p. 41
\n\t      “In Tamar area the social stratification among
\n\t      the  Munda has reached a developed form.\t Six
\n\t      distinct\t  classes   or\t castes\t   may\t  be
\n\t      distinguished.  These may be grouped into\t two
\n\t      viz.  (a) the Zamindars or landlords  and\t (b)
\n\t      the tenants.  In group A we have at the  top,
\n\t      landlords called Thakur who hold above fifteen
\n\t      villages each.  Next come Manki who are lesser
\n\t      landlords holding upto ten or eleven  villages
\n\t      each. In group B are the Mundari who are Munda
\n\t      tenants.\t Intermarriage between\tMundari\t and
\n\t      the above mentioned four classes is well\tnigh
\n\t      impossible due to great disparity in  economic
\n\t      and social status.  At the bottom
\n\t      813<\/span>
\n\t      of  the Munda society in Tamar are  the  Patar
\n\t      who belong to the Mahali-Mundako branch of the
\n\t      tribe.   Though they hold small bits  of\tland
\n\t      there  is no social intercourse  between\tthem
\n\t      and  the\tupper  five  groups.   Not  only  is
\n\t      intermarriage   unthinkable  but\teven   water
\n\t      cannot be taken from the hands of a Patar.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Patars\tare it appears regarded as the lowest in the  social
\norder amongst the Mundas but they are still Mundas.
\nIn   Encyclopedia  Mundarica  by  Rev.\t John\tHoffman\t  in
\ncollaboration  with Rev.  Arthur Van Emelen, VoL IX,  at  p.
\n2881 it is stated that “Munda is a name which has been given
\nto the Mundas by the Hindus” and is exclusively used by\t all
\nbut the Mundas themselves. Under the heading Munda are given
\nthe names of different-sub-tribes of the Mundas one of which
\nis  Mahdli.   At  p. 2756in the same  book  after  the\thead
\n“Mahali”  it is said that a Mahali is a Munda of  the  elder
\nbranch.\t  The author then proceeded to say that the  Mahalis
\nare also called Tamadias especially by Hindus and in  Chota-
\nNagpur\tthey are called Khangars.  In Tamar they are  called
\nPators.\t The Mundari they speak is characterized by a  great
\nnumber of vocal checks.\t They have practically all the clans
\n(kilis) found amongst the Mundas.\n<\/p>\n
The  evidence  given on behalf of the  first  respondent  is
\namply\tsupported   by\t studies   made\t  by   distinguished
\nanthropologists.   The\tfirst  respondent  was\twithout\t any
\nobjection  recorded in the voters’ list as a member  of\t the
\nScheduled  Tribe.  He was elected in 1962 from\ta  scheduled
\ntribe  constituency.  He again contested the elections\tfrom
\nthat constituency in 1967 but he was defeated. It is only in
\n4969 when at the fresh elections that he contested the\tseat
\nand  was declared elected when an objection was raised\tthat
\nhe did not belong to a scheduled tribe.\t On a  consideration
\nof  all\t the evidence we are of the view that Patars  are  a
\nsub-tribe  of  Mundas and that they are not  different\tfrom
\nMundas.\n<\/p>\n
The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the  appel-
\nlant has also no substance.  It is true that in Part III  of
\nthe  Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)  Order,
\n1950  issued  under Art. 342<\/a> of the  Constitution  the\tname
\n“Munda”\t is mentioned and similarly the names of other\tsub-
\ntribes\tamongst\t Mundas\t are  mentioned.   Counsel  for\t the
\nappellant  contended that if according to Dr.  Sachchidanand
\nMahalis, Ho, Bhumijs, Asur, Baiga, and Khangars are  Mundas,
\nspecific  mention  of some of those tribes in  the  Schedule
\nTribes\tOrder  clearly indicated that Patars  who are  not
\nmentioned  therein  are\t not a Scheduled  Tribe\t within\t the
\nmeaning of the Order.  There is however no
\n814<\/span>
\nwarrant for that view.\tIf Patars are Mundas, because  some
\nsub-tribes of Mundas are enumerated in the Order and  others
\nare  not, no inference will arise that those not  enumerated
\nare  not Mudas.\t We are unable to hold that  because  Patars
\nare  not specifically mentioned in the List they  cannot  be
\nincluded in the general heading Munda.\n<\/p>\n
Decisions  in  support\tof the contention  that\t the  Courts
\ncannot allow evidence, to be taken for proving that  certain
\nclasses\t of  people though not expressly designated  in\t the
\nPresidential Order were intended to be covered by the  Order
\nmay be briefly referred to. It may suffice to state  however
\nthat it is not the case of the first respondent that  Patars
\nare  a distinct community, but that they should be  regarded
\nas  Mundas because of the similarity of\t customs,  religious
\nbeliefs, forms of worship and other social obligations.
\nIn  B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa<\/a> (1)  the  relevant
\nfacts  were that M who was elected from a  Scheduled  Castes
\nconstituency claimed to belong to the Bhovi caste which\t was
\none  of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in  the\tConstitution
\n(Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued by the President under
\nArt.  341<\/a> of the Constitution.\tIn an election petition\t it-
\nwas  claimed that M belonged to the Voddar caste  which\t was
\nnot  mentioned in the Order and that on- that account M\t was
\nnot  entitled  to stand for election  from  Scheduled  Caste
\nconstituency.  Evidence was led before the Election Tribunal
\nthat Bhovi was a sub-caste of the Voddar caste and as M\t did
\nnot  belong  to the Bhovi sub-caste he could not  stand\t for
\nelection  from the constituency.  The High Court  in  appeal
\nheld  that  although Voddar, caste was not included  in\t the
\nOrder,\tyet  considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  in
\nexistence at the time when the Order was passed in 1950, the
\nBhovi  caste  mentioned\t in the order was the  same  as\t the
\nVoddar caste.  In appeal to this Court it was contended that
\nthe  High  Court was wrong in considering the  evidence\t and
\nthen coming to the conclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned
\nin  the\t Order was meant for the caste Voddar and  that\t the
\nTribunal’  should  have\t declined to allow  evidence  to  be
\nproduced which would have the effect of modifying the  Order
\nissued by the President.  This Court held that the  evidence
\nclearly showed that in 1950 when the Order was passed  there
\nwas  no\t caste in the then Mysore State which was  known  as
\nBhovi  and the Order could not have intended to recognise  a
\ncaste  which did not exist.  It was therefore  necessary  to
\nfind out which caste was meant by the use of the name  Bhovi
\nand  for that purpose evidence was rightly recorded  by\t the
\nTribunal  and  acted  upon by the High\tCourt.\t This  Court
\naccordingly confirmed the, view of the High
\n[1965] 1 S. C.\tR. 316.\n<\/p>\n
315<\/span><\/p>\n
Court.\t The decision in this case lends no support  to\t the
\ncontention that evidence is inadmissible for the- purpose of
\nshowing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended
\nto mean.\n<\/p>\n
The  next  case\t in the order of sequence  is  Bhaiyalal  v.
\nHarikishan Singh and Others<\/a>.(1) In that case an election  to
\na  State Legislature was challenged an the ground  that\t the
\nsuccessful  candidate belonged to the Dohar caste which\t was
\nnot  recognised\t as  Scheduled Caste  for  the\tdistrict  in
\nquestion,  and on that ground the successful  candidate\t was
\nnot competent to stand for election.  The Election  Tribunal
\ndeclared the election invalid and the finding was  confirmed
\non appeal by the High Court.  It was hold by this Court that
\nthe plea that the appellant is not a Chamar, and as such, he
\ncould-\tnot  claim the status of a Chamar claiming  that  he
\nbelonged to Dohar Caste which is a sub-caste, of the  Chamar
\ncaste  and  that  an  enquiry  of  the\tkind  would  not  be
\npermissible  having  regard to the provisions  contained  in
\nArt.  341<\/a>  of the Constitution.\t It was urged in  that\tcase
\nthat  Chamars were recognised as a Scheduled Caste  but\t not
\nthe  Dohar.  The successful candidate was, it was  found,  a
\nDohar  and was not a Chamar.  The Court declined to allow  a
\nplea to be raised that Dohars were in some areas  recognised
\nas  a  sub-caste  of Chamars.  The  contention\twas  plainly
\nfutile, once it was held that the candidate was not a Chamar
\nin  the constituency to which the Order related\t and  Dehars
\nwere  not  a Scheduled )Caste.\tThe Court  observed,that  in
\nspecifying  castes,  races or tribes under Art. 341<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution, the President had been expressly authorised to
\nEmit  the  notification\t to parts of or\t groups\t within\t the
\ncaste, race or tribe, and the President may well come to the
\nconclusion  that  not the whole caste, race, or\t tribe,\t but
\nparts  of  or  groups  within  them  should  be\t  specified.
\nSimilarly the President can specify castes, races or  tribes
\nor  parts thereof in relation not only to the entire  State,
\nbut  in\t relation  to the parts of the\tState  where  he  is
\nsatisfied that the examination of the social and educational
\nbackwardness  of  the races, caste or tribe  justifies\tsuch
\nspecification.\t On that view the Court upheld the  decision
\nof  the High Court that the successful candidate who  was  a
\nDohar was not, in the Constituency from which the case arose
\na  Chamar within the meaning of the Constitution  (Scheduled
\nCastes) Order, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa<\/a> jamappanna  &
\nOrs.(2) an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Mysore
\nLegislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the
\nScheduled  Tribes filed an election petition  alleging\tthat
\nthe other three candidates were Bedars a tribe not specified
\nin  Part VIII para 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled  Tribes)
\nOrder,
\n(1) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 805.\n<\/p>\n
816<\/span><\/p>\n
1950.\tThe  successful\t candidate asserted that  he  was  a
\nNayaka\tand the Nayakas were also called Bedars.  The  High
\nCourt  held  that  there  was no  Nayaka  in  the  area\t and
\nsuccessful  candidate was a Bedar.  This Court allowed\tthe
\nappeal\tand held that Nayakas were to be found not  only  in
\nthe  districts\tof  Mysore  but\t also  in  Maharashtra\t and
\nRajasthan.   “This  tribal  community  was  therefore  wide-
\nspread”\t and  it was not possible to say that there  was  no
\nNayaka\tin the district to which the appellant belonged.   A
\nbare assertion\tby  the\t election  petitioner  that   the
\nappellant  was\ta  Bedar did not  suffice  to  displace\t the
\nacceptance  of\tthe  nomination paper or the  claim  of\t the
\nappellant that he was a Nayaka.\n<\/p>\n
 In the, present case it is not the contention of the  first
\nrespondent  that he was a Patar-member of a tribe  which  is
\nnot  Munda, but he was recognized as a Munda.  His case\t was
\nthat in his tribe he was as a Munda Patar.\n<\/p>\n
Attention may also be directed to a recent judgment of\tthis
\nCourt in, Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (1) In that case Dina
\nNarnavare   was\t  declared  elected   to   the\t Maharashtra
\nLegislative  Assembly  from  the  Armori  Scheduled   Tribes
\nconstituency.  His election was set aside on the application
\nfiled  by the first respondent on the ground that  Dina\t was
\nnot  eligible  to  stand  as a\tcandidate  from\t a  reserved
\nconstituency.\tDina  had declared in his  nomination  paper
\nthat  he was a member of the Gond (Mana) caste and the\tsame
\nwas  a\tScheduled  Tribe in Taluka  Gadchiroli\tof  District
\nChanda\tin  the Maharashtra State and being a  Gond  though
\nstyled\tas Mana he was entitled to the privileges given by
\nthe Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.  This Court
\non  a consideration of the evidence came to  the  conclusion
\nthat  there  was  no sub-tribe of Maratha  Manas  among\t the
\nGonds.\t It  was found that the customs, manners,  forms  (A
\nworship\t and  dress  of\t the members  of  the  Maratha\tMana
\ncommunity were all different from the customs, manners, form
\nof  worship and dress of the Gonds.  In that view the  Court
\nheld  that Mana community amongst the Marathas could not  be
\nregarded  as  Gond and the appellant was,  not\tentitled  to
\nstand  for election as Gond.  The decision  clearly  decides
\nthat the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is\t not
\ndecisive.   Even if the tribe of a person is different\tfrom
\nthe  name included in the Order issued by the President,  it
\nmay  be\t shown that the name is included in the Order  is  a
\ngeneral name applicable to sub-tribes.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
V.P.S.\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(2) C. A. No. 1622 of 1957 decided on May, 21, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
817<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2533, 1971 SCR (1) 804 Author: S C. Bench: Shah, J.C. PETITIONER: BHAIYA RAM MUNDA Vs. RESPONDENT: ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/1970 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA CITATION: 1971 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-257289","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-09T14:31:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970\",\"datePublished\":\"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T14:31:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\"},\"wordCount\":5361,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\",\"name\":\"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-09T14:31:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-09T14:31:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970","datePublished":"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T14:31:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970"},"wordCount":5361,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970","name":"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1970-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-09T14:31:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhaiya-ram-munda-vs-anirudh-patar-ors-on-14-august-1970#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhaiya Ram Munda vs Anirudh Patar & Ors on 14 August, 1970"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257289","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=257289"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257289\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257289"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257289"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257289"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}