{"id":266736,"date":"1990-01-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1990-01-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990"},"modified":"2016-12-27T13:05:25","modified_gmt":"2016-12-27T07:35:25","slug":"revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990","title":{"rendered":"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 727, 1990 SCR (1)\t 88<\/div>\n
Author: B Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, B.C. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nREVENUE OFFICER & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPRAFULLA KUMAR PATI & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/01\/1990\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nRAY, B.C. (J)\nREDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1990 AIR  727\t\t  1990 SCR  (1)\t 88\n 1990 SCC  (2) 162\t  JT 1990 (1)\t155\n 1990 SCALE  (1)124\n\n\nACT:\n    Orissa   Land  Reforms  Act,  1960:\t Sections   22\t and\n23--Land--Sale by a Scheduled Caste in favour of  non-Sched-\nuled  Caste--Requisite permission from Revenue\tOfficer\t not\nobtained--Validity of.\n    Constitution of India,  1950: Article 341---<\/a>The  Consti-\ntution\t Scheduled   Castes   order,   1950--Schedule---Part\nXIII--Item No. 26-'Rajaka' Caste--Whether 'Scheduled  Caste'\nCaste not specified in the List--Effect of--Duty of Court to\nenquire.\nWords and Phrases: 'Rajaka '--Meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Respondent\tNo. 2, a scheduled caste, filed a  case\t for\nrestoration of lands sold to respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, non\nscheduled castes, on the ground that the sale was in  viola-\ntion  of section 22 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960  as\nthe  requisite\tpermission of the Revenue  Officer  was\t not\nobtained.  In the sale deed the\t transferor--Respondent\t was\ndescribed as 'Rajaka' while in the caste certificate he\t was\nmentioned  as  ' Dhoba'. The Revenue  Officer  rejected\t the\nease.\n    Respondent\tNo. 2 filed an appeal which was\t allowed  by\nthe  Additional\t District Magistrate. Against the  order  of\nAdditional  District Magistrate a revision was preferred  by\nrespondent No. 1 which was dismissed by the Special Officer,\nLand Reforms by holding that merely because the word  'Raja-\nka' does not find mention in the Scheduled Caste Order, 1950\ndoes not exclude it from the purview of such an order.\n    In\tthe connected appeal respondent No. 5 filed  a\tcase\nfor  restoration of land sold to respondent No. 1 which\t was\nallowed by the Revenue Officer. The appeal filed by respond-\nent  No. 1 was dismissed by the Additional  District  Magis-\ntrate.\tA  Revision preferred by Respondent No. 1  was\talso\ndismissed by the Special Officer Land Reforms.\n    Respondent No. 1 filed writ petitions in the High  Court\nwhich quashed the orders made by the Special Officer,  hold-\ning  that the Revenue Authorities committed a serious  error\nof law in holding that\n89\n'Rajaka' caste was included within the notified caste\/commu-\nnity of Dhoba'.\n    In these appeals it was contended on behalf of transfer-\nee-respondents that the Caste 'Rajaka' mentioned in the sale\ndeeds  cannot be taken to be synonym of caste  'Dhoba'\tmen-\ntioned\tin  Item 26 of the List in Scheduled  Castes  Order,\n1950.\nAllowing the appeals, this Court,\n    HELD:  1.  Though the respondent Nos. 2 and 5  i.e.\t the\ntransferors  mentioned in the deeds of transfer their  caste\nas 'Rajaka' there is no such caste mentioned in the  Consti-\ntution\t(Scheduled  Castes)  Order, 1950.  In  such  circum-\nstances, it is necessary and also incumbent on the Court  to\nconsider as to what caste they belong to. [96B]\n    B.\tBasavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa<\/a>, [1965] 1  S.C.R.\n316, followed.\n    2.\t'Rajaka'  is  the  literal  synonym  for  the\tword\n'Dhoba'-and according to the Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasakosh a\nwhich  is a recognised authority, the definition of  'Dhoba'\nis Rajaka-washerman. Therefore the submission that the caste\n'Rajaka'  is  different\t from caste 'Dhoba' is\tnot  at\t all\nsustainable. [96A]\n    3.\tIn the record of rights as well as the various\tcer-\ntificates  issued by the revenue authorities and  the  local\nM.L.As\tthe transferors have been described as belonging  to\n'Dhoba' community. The irresistible conclusion that  follows\nis that the respondent--transferors belong to 'Dhoba'  caste\nwhich is one of the Scheduled Caste in the State of  Orissa.\n[96H, 97A]\n    3.1\t Therefore the transfers made by respondent  Nos.  2\nand 5 in favour of respondent No. 1, who admittedly  belongs\nto Brahmin caste, are hit by the provisions of Section 22 of\nthe Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 in as much as the previous\npermission  in writing of the Revenue Officer had  not\tbeen\nobtained to the alleged transfers. [95C]\n    [The  transferee--respondents  directed to\trestore\t the\nlands\t in    question\t  to   the   possession\t   of\t the\ntransferor--respondents forthwith.] [97C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1052-53
\nof 1990.\n<\/p>\n
90<\/span><\/p>\n
    From the Judgment and Order dated 4,7.1986 of the Orissa
\nHigh Court in OJC. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983.
\nA.K. Panda for the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Kundan Lal Jagga and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
\nThe following Order of the Court was delivered:
\nORDER
\nSpecial leave granted. Agruments heard.\n<\/p>\n
    These  two\tappeals on special leave arise\tout  of\t the
\ncommon\tjudgment of the High Court of Orissa made in  O.J.C.
\nNos.  1007 and 1008 of 1983 decided on July 4, 1986  whereby
\nthe  High  Court set aside and quashed the  impugned  orders
\nmade by the Special Officer, Land Reforms, Central Division,
\nCuttack in O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 as well as O.L.R.
\nNo. 142 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t matrix\t of the case in O.J.C. No. 1007 of  1983  is
\nthat  on  July 30, 1977, the respondent\t No.  2,  Paramanand
\nSethi  filed  case No. 85 of 1977 under section\t 22  of\t the
\nOrissa\tLand Reforms Act, against S\/Shri B. Mohapatra,\tPra-
\nfulla Kumar Pati and Gadadhar Pati (Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and\n<\/p>\n
4) for restoration of lands sold to respondent Nos. 1, 3 and
\n4  on the ground that respondent No. 2 was a member  of\t the
\nScheduled Caste (Dhoba Community) and the sales in  question
\nwere  hit by the provisions contained in section 22  of\t the
\nOrissa Land Reforms Act, 1960. The respondent No. 2 filed  a
\ncaste  certificate  of the Additional  Tehasildar,  Betanoti
\nwherein\t the  respondent  No. 2 was shown  as  belonging  to
\n‘Dhoba’\t by caste which is recognised as a Scheduled  Caste.
\nHe  also  filed the record of rights in the  name  of  Arjun
\nSethi, father of respondent No. 2 which showed the caste  of
\nArjun Sethi as ‘Dhoba’.\n<\/p>\n
    The respondent No. 5, Smt. Nilamani Sethi, wife of\tLate
\nBhanu  Sethi  also filed O.L.R. Misc. Case No.\t21  of\t1979
\nunder  Section\t22 of the Orissa Land  Reforms\tAct  stating
\ninter alia that the sale made by her in favour of respondent
\nNo.  1 who admittedly belonged to Brahmin Caste is  void  as
\nthe said sale was made without the permission of the Revenue
\nOfficer as mandatorily required under the provisions of\t the
\naid  Act. She produced the Caste certificate issued by\ttile
\nTehasildar,  Betanoti  which  showed that  she\tbelonged  to
\n‘Dhoba’ caste
\n91<\/span>
\nwhich is recognised as a scheduled caste. She further  filed
\ntwo  caste  certificates  issued by the\t two  M.L.As.  which
\ncertified that she belonged to a scheduled caste, (Dhoba).
\n    The Revenue Officer, vide his order dated March 19, 1979
\nrejected the case No. 85 of 1977 filed by the respondent No.
\nParamanand  Sethi. The respondent No. 2 filed O.L.R.  Appeal
\nNo. of 1979 in the court of Additional District\t Magistrate,
\nMayutbhanj and the same was allowed vide judgment and  order
\ndated  December\t 1980. The  Additional\tDistrict  Magistrate
\nwhile allowing the appeal observed as follows:
\n“It is a known fact that there is no community called  ‘Raj-
\naka’  community\t which is different  from  Dhoba  community.
\nRajaka\tis only a literary word for the common\tterm  Dhoba.
\nWhile mentioning his caste as ‘Rajaka’ the appellant has not
\nceased\tto be a ‘Dhoba’. The certificate given by the  Addl.
\nTehasildar, Betanoti and the entry in the R.O.R. confirm the
\nassertion of the petitioner that he is a Dhoba by caste.  In
\nthe circumstances, the petitioner must be held to be a\tS.C,
\nperson and for that matter, his brothers and mother are also
\nthe members of a S,C, According to Section 22 of the  Orissa
\nLand Reforms Act previous permission from the Revenue  Offi-
\ncer  should have been obtained by them\tbefore\ttransferring
\ntheir  lands  to the respondents. Since this  statutory\t re-
\nquirement  has not been met, the transfers are illegal.\t The
\nsuit land must, therefore, be restored to the transferors.”\n<\/p>\n
    Against the said judgment and order, the respondent\t No.
\n1  filed O.L.R. Revision No. 131 of 1982 before the  Special
\nOfficer,  Land Reforms, Central Division, Cuttack, The\tsaid
\nRevision  Case was dismissed vide judgment and\torder  dated
\nMarch  4,  1983 on the finding that there  were\t records  of
\ncompetent  authorities like Addl. Tehasildar,  Betanoti\t and
\nthe  record of rights showing that the caste  of  Paramanand
\nSethi is ‘Dhoba’. it has been further observed that:
\n“As  per the Oriya Bhasakosha the definition of\t ‘Dhoba’  is
\n‘Rajaka–Washerman’.  Hence, there is no conflict  regarding
\nwhat  is the meaning of ‘Rajaka’. It is merely a synonym  of
\nthe word ‘Dhoba’. The Sanskrit lot ‘Dhoba’ is ‘Rajaka’. Just
\nbecause\t the  word  ‘Rajaka’ does not find  mention  in\t the
\nPresidential Order does not exclude it from the purview
\n92<\/span>
\nof such an order. ‘Dhobas’ are Scheduled Castes and ‘Rajaka’
\nis  a  synonym of ‘Dhoba’. Now, that the High Court  has  so
\neloquently  laid  down the law in this regard, there  is  no
\nreason\tto deny protection to the weaker sections on a\tmere
\ntechnicality.  ‘This denial would be contrary to the  spirit
\nof the Orissa Land Reforms Act, itself.”\n<\/p>\n
    O.L.R. Misc. Case No. 21 of 1979 filed by the respondent
\nNo.  5,\t Smt. Nilamani Sethi was allowed  vide\torder  dated
\nMarch 10, 1980 by the Revenue Officer directing the restora-
\ntion of the suit lands to respondent No. 5 under Section  23
\nof  the Orissa Land Reforms Act. The respondent No. 1  filed
\nO.L.R.\tAppeal\tNo. 42 of 1980 in the  Court  of  Additional
\nDistrict  Magistrate, Mayurbhanj. ‘The said appeal was\tdis-
\nmissed\tvide  judgment\tand order dated\t February  21,\t1981
\nholding\t that the transferor had amply proved that  she\t was
\nDhoba  which is a Scheduled Caste by  producing\t documentary
\nevidence. She, therefore, does not cease to be a Dhoba\teven
\nif she has described herself in the various deeds as Rajaka.
\nSince  the transfer of the suit lands had been made  to\t the
\nrespondent  No. 1, Prafulla Kumar Pati who is a\t brahmin  by
\ncaste  without\tobtaining prior written\t permission  of\t the
\nRevenue\t Officer as required under Section 22 of the  Orissa
\nLand Reforms Act, the transactions had been rightly declared
\nas void by the Revenue Officer. ‘The suit lands must  there-
\nfore, be restored to the possession of the respondent No. 5.
\n    Against this order, respondent No. 1 filed O.L.R.  Revi-
\nsion  No. 142 of 1982 before the Special Officer,  Land\t Re-
\nforms, Central Division, Cuttack and the same was  dismissed
\nvide judgment and order dated February 2, 1983.
\n    The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed two writ petitions
\ncalled\tO.J.C. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of 1983 against the  judg-
\nments  and orders dated March 4, 1983 and February  2,\t1983
\nrespectively  passed by the Special Officer,  Land  Reforms,
\nCentral\t Division, Cuttack. Both these writ  petitions\twere
\nheard and disposed of by a common judgment impugned in these
\ntwo appeals on special leave whereby the High Court,  Orissa
\nset aside and quashed the judgments and orders passed by the
\nSpecial\t Officer, I.and Reforms, Central  Division,  Cuttack
\nand allowed the writ petitions observing inter alia that:
\n“Considering  the  cases in hand in the light of  the  above
\ndiscussions, I have no hesitation to come to the  conclusion
\nthat the Revenue Authorities have committed a serious
\n93<\/span>
\nerror of law in coming to the conclusion that ‘Rajaka’ caste
\nwas included within the notified caste\/community of  ‘Dhoba’
\nas their nature of work was similar. Although it is unneces-
\nsary  to make any further discussion, I must point out\tthat
\neven  on  a  reference to the Bhashakosha it  could  not  be
\ncategorically said that ‘Rajaka’ was a caste which could not
\nbe said to be a class of washerman as the Bhashakosha itself
\ngives other meanings of this word.”\n<\/p>\n
    Against this judgment and order, the instant appeals  on
\nspecial\t leave have been filed. Before proceeding to  decide
\nthe question whether the respondent Nos. 2 and 5, the trans-
\nferors\tbelonged to the scheduled caste–Dhoba Community  as
\nmentioned in item No. 26 of the List of Scheduled Castes  in
\nthe  Scheduled Caste Order, 1950 in the State of Orissa,  it
\nis  relevant  to refer to the provisions of Section  22\t and
\nSection 23 of the Orissa Land ,Reforms Act, 1960 (Orissa Act
\n16 of 1960):\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 22: Restriction on alienation of land by  Scheduled
\n‘Tribes. (1) Any transfer of a holding or part thereof by  a
\nraiyat, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe shall be void  except
\nwhere it is in favour of–\n<\/p>\n
(a) a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  a person not belonging to a Scheduled ‘Tribe when\tsuch
\ntransfer is made with the previous permission in writing  of
\nthe Revenue Officer:\n<\/p>\n
Provided  that\tin case of a transfer by  sale\tthe  Revenue
\nOfficer shall not grant such permission unless he is  satis-
\nfied that a purchaser belonging to a Scheduled Tribe willing
\nto  pay the market price for the land is not available,\t and
\nin  case  of a gift unless he is satisfied  about  the\tbona
\nfides thereof.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  The State Government may having regard to the  law\t and
\ncustom applicable to any area prior to the date of commence-
\nment  of this Act by notification direct that  the  restric-
\ntions provided in sub-S. (1) shall not apply to lands  situ-
\nated  in  such\tarea or belonging to  any  particular  tribe
\nthroughout the State or in any part of it.\n<\/p>\n
94<\/span><\/p>\n
(3) Except with the written permission of the Revenue  Offi-
\ncer, no such holding shall be sold in execution of a  decree
\nto any person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.
\n(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law\t for
\nthe  time being in force where any document required  to  be
\nregistered  under  the provisions of Cl. (a) to Cl.  (e)  of
\nsub-S.\t(1)  of S. 17<\/a> of the Registration Act, 1908  (16  of
\n1908)  purports\t to  effect transfer of a  holding  or\tpart
\nthereof by a raiyat belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in favour
\nof a person not belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, no register-
\ning officer appointed under that Act shall register any such
\ndocument, unless such document is accompanied by the written
\npermission of the Revenue Officer for such transfer.
\n(5) The provisions contained in sub-Ss. 1 to 4 shall  apply,
\nmutatis\t mutandis,  to\tthe transfer of a  holding  or\tpart
\nthereof of a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Castes.
\n(6) Nothing in this section shall apply\n<\/p>\n
(a) to any sale in execution of a money decree passed, or to
\nany  transfer by way of mortgage executed, in favour of\t any
\nscheduled bank or in favour of any bank to which the  Orissa
\nCo-operative  Societies\t Act<\/a>, 1962 (Orissa Act 33  of  1962)
\napplies; and\n<\/p>\n
(b) to any transfer by a member of a Scheduled Tribe  within
\na Scheduled Area.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 23<\/a>: Effect of transfer in contravention of  S.\t 22<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
(1)<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the case of any transfer in contravention of the  provi-
\nsions of sub-S. (1) of S. 22 the Revenue Officer on his\t own
\ninformation or on the application of any person interest  in
\nthe  land may issue notice in the prescribed manner  calling
\nupon  the  transferor and transferee to show cause  why\t the
\ntransfer should not be declared invalid.\n<\/p>\n
    Section  22<\/a> clearly enjoins that a person  belonging  to
\nScheduled  Tribe can not make a valid transfer of his  lands
\nin  favour of a person not belonging to the Scheduled  Tribe
\nwithout obtaining the-previous
\n95<\/span>
\npermission in writing of the Revenue Officer to such  trans-
\nfer. Subsection 5<\/a> of the said section further provides\tthat
\nthe provisions contained in sub-section 1<\/a> to 4<\/a> shall  apply,
\nmutatis mutandis to the transfer of a holding or part there-
\nof a raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Section\t23-B<\/a>
\nof the said Act further provides that if the validity of the
\ntransfer of any holding or part thereof is in question,\t the
\nburden of proof that the transfer was valid shall,  notwith-
\nstanding  anything contained in any other law for  the\ttime
\nbeing in force, lie on the transferee.\n<\/p>\n
    In this case, the transfers made by the respondent\tNos.
\n2  and 5 in favour of respondent No. 1, Prafulla Kumar\tPati
\nwho  admittedly\t belongs  to Brahmin caste are\thit  by\t the
\nprovisions  of Section 22<\/a> of the said Act in as much as\t the
\nprevious  permission in writing of the Revenue\tOfficer\t had
\nnot  been  obtained to the alleged transfers.  It  has\tbeen
\nsubmitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 that they
\nbelong to Dhoba (Dhobi) community which is one of the Sched-
\nuled Caste in the State of Orissa under the Scheduled  Caste
\nOrder,\t1950. It has been further contended that the  father
\nof  the respondent No. 2 has been recorded as  belonging  to
\nDhoba  community in the finally published record  of  rights
\nwhich has been annexed as Annexure ‘B’ to these appeals.  It
\nhas  also been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos.  2
\nand 5 that the caste certificates granted by the  Tehsildar,
\nBetanoti as well as by the two local M.L.As. clearly  estab-
\nlished\tthat  the respondent Nos. 2 and 5  belong  to  Dhoba
\ncommunity and as such they are Scheduled Castes. Much  argu-
\nment  has  been advanced on the mentioning of the  caste  of
\nthese  two respondents as ‘Rajaka’ in the alleged  deeds  on
\nthe ground that the caste ‘Rajaka’ as mentioned in the\tsale
\ndeeds  did not find place in the List and instead the  Caste
\n‘Dhoba’\t appears in Item 26 of the List of Scheduled  Castes
\nin  the State of Orissa under the Constitution of  Scheduled
\nCaste Order, 1950 as made under Article 341<\/a> of the Constitu-
\ntion of India. It has been urged in this connection that the
\nCaste ‘Rajaka’ as mentioned in the deeds can not be taken to
\nbe  synonym of caste ‘Dhoba’ and no evidence can be  adduced
\nto  that effect to prove that ‘Rajaka’ included\t within\t the
\nnotified  caste, commentary of ‘Dhoba’ as held by  the\tHigh
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tare  unable to accept this  contention\tadvanced  on
\nbehalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on the ground\tthat
\nthe caste of the respondent No. 2 and 5 was mentioned in the
\ncaste  certificates  granted by the Tehsildar,\tBetanoti  as
\n‘Dhoba’. Moreover, in the finally published record of rights
\nthe caste of the father of respondent No. 2 had been record-
\ned also as ‘Dhoba’ which undoubtedly is a Scheduled
\n96<\/span>
\nCaste  under the Scheduled Castes Order, 1950  issued  under
\nthe provisions of Article 341<\/a> of the Constitution of  India.
\nIt is also pertinent to mention that ‘Rajaka’ is the literal
\nsynonym\t for  the  word ‘Dhoba’ and according  to  the\tPuma
\nChandra\t Oriya Bhasakosha which is a  recognised  authority,
\nthe definition of ‘Dhoba’ is Rajaka-washerman. As such,\t the
\nsubmission  that the caste ‘Rajaka’ is different from  caste
\n‘Dhoba’ is not at all sustainable. It is pertinent to  refer
\nin this connection to the observations of the Supreme  Court
\nin  B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa<\/a>, [1965] 1 SCR\t 316
\nat 320 wherein it has been observed that:\n<\/p>\n
“Ordinarily  therefore\tit would not have been open  in\t the
\npresent case to give evidence that the Voddar caste was\t the
\nsame  as the Bhovi caste specified in the Order\t for  Voddar
\ncaste is not mentioned in brackets after the Bhovi caste  in
\nthe Order.\n<\/p>\n
\t But  that  in\tour opinion does  not  conclude\t the
\nmatter\tin the peculiar circumstances of the  present  case.
\nThe  difficulty\t in the present case arises  from  the\tfact
\n(which\twas not disputed before the High Court) that in\t the
\nMysore\tState as it was before the re-organisation  of\t1956
\nthere  was no caste known as Bhovi at all. The Order  refers
\nto  a scheduled caste known as Bhovi at the Mysore State  as
\nit  was before 1956 and therefore it must be  accepted\tthat
\nthere was some caste which the President intended to include
\nafter  consultation with the Rajpramukh in the\tOrder,\twhen
\nthe Order mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled caste.  It
\ncannot\tbe  accepted that the President included  the  caste
\nBhovi in the Order though there was no such caste at all  in
\nthe  Mysore State as it existed before 1956. But when it  is
\nnot  disputed that there was no caste specifically known  as
\nBhovi in the Mysore State before 1956, the only course\topen
\nto  courts to find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is  to
\ntake evidence in that behalf.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  instant case, referring to this  decision\teven
\nthough\tthe  respondent Nos. 2 and 5  i.e.  the\t transferors
\nmentioned in the deeds of transfer their caste as  ‘Rajaka’,
\nthere  is  no such caste mentioned in  the  Constitution  of
\nScheduled Caste Order, 1950. In such circumstances,  relying
\non the aforesaid observation of this Court, it is  necessary
\nand also incumbent on the Court to consider as to what caste
\nthe respondent Nos. 2 and 5 belong to. Moreover, considering
\nthe record of
\n97<\/span>
\nrights\tas  well as the various certificates issued  by\t the
\nrevenue authorities and the local M.L.As. referred to  here-
\ninbefore  wherein  the transferors have\t been  described  as
\nbelonging to ‘Dhoba’ community, the irresistible  conclusion
\nthat  follows is that the respondents-transferors belong  to
\n‘Dhoba’\t caste\twhich is one of the Scheduled Caste  in\t the
\nState of Orissa.\n<\/p>\n
    In the premises aforesaid the judgment and order of\t the
\nHigh Court referred to in O.J.C. Nos. 1007 and 1008 of\t1983
\nare  liable  to be set aside. We, therefore, set  aside\t the
\nsame  and  affirm  the order of the  Special  Officer,\tLand
\nReforms, Central Division, Cuttack passed in O.L.R. Revision
\nNo.  131 of 1982 and O.L.R. No. 142 of 1982. The  respondent
\nNos.  1, 3 and 4 are directed to restore the lands in  ques-
\ntion to the possession of the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 forth-
\nwith. The appeals are allowed without any order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
T.N.A.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n98<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 Equivalent citations: 1990 AIR 727, 1990 SCR (1) 88 Author: B Ray Bench: Ray, B.C. (J) PETITIONER: REVENUE OFFICER & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: PRAFULLA KUMAR PATI & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/01\/1990 BENCH: RAY, B.C. (J) BENCH: RAY, […]<\/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-266736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRevenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 - 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\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\" \/>\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=\"1990-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-27T07:35:25+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990\",\"datePublished\":\"1990-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-27T07:35:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\"},\"wordCount\":2861,\"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\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\",\"name\":\"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1990-01-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-27T07:35:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990\"}]},{\"@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":"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 - 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\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1990-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-27T07:35:25+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990","datePublished":"1990-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-27T07:35:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990"},"wordCount":2861,"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\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990","name":"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1990-01-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-27T07:35:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/revenue-officer-ors-vs-prafulla-kumar-pati-ors-on-17-january-1990#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990"}]},{"@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\/266736","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=266736"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266736\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}