Bhojwani & Ors Vs. State of U.P
 Insc 407 (26
& S.B. Sinha. & ORDER With C.A.
Nos. 6383-6398 of 1999
appellants herein (in C.A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999) were the owners of large
tract of land situate in village Chhauni Gora Barik and/or Chhauni Qadim, Pargana
Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
respondent herein (in C.A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999) is the State of U.P., through the Collector, [Land Acquisition Officer, Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Parishad')], established
and constituted under the provisions of U.P.
Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short 'the Adhiniyam'). Under the Adhiniyam,
the Parishad is entrusted with certain functions and duties for preparing and
executing housing schemes. For the aforesaid purpose in mind, the Parishad
issued a notification dated 1st of November, 1974 under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam,
which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. By the
aforesaid Notification a large tract of land was sought to be acquired pursuant
to a Housing Scheme for construction of houses for the public. The said
notification was followed by a Notification dated 11th November, 1978, under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, which is
equivalent to Section 6 of the Notification.
Land Acquisition Officer gave three different Awards on three different dates.
In the case of appellants herein, the Land Acquisition Officer offered
compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 2/- per square feet in first two
Awards and Rs.3/- per square feet in the last Award.
pertinent to mention here that the Land Acquisition Officer offered separate
compensation for the structure standing on the land as well as to the existing
claimants were not satisfied by the compensation and, therefore, they sought
compensation before the Civil
Court. The Civil
Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.7.75, Rs. 12/- and Rs.15/- per square
feet respectively and also enhanced the compensation awarded for the Tube Well
as well as the structure standing on the land. Aggrieved, the parties preferred
appeals and cross appeals before the High Court.
High Court after considering the matters, modified the judgment of the Reference Court awarding compensation @ Rs.10/- per
square feet. However, it declined to award separate compensation for the Tube
Well and the structure standing on the Land. The High Court, however, held that
there would be further deduction @ 10% towards the development of the land.
claimants, (appellants in C.A. Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999 and the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and appellants in C.A. Nos. 6383-6398 of 1999) not satisfied,
preferred separate appeals by way of special leave petition.
Court, while entertaining the special leave petitions, restricted the notice on
the following three questions:
Whether solaltium and interest should have been awarded as per the Land
Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 as laid down by this Jainul Islam and Anr.
(1998 (2) S.C.C. 467);
Whether appropriate compensation should have been awarded for structures and
tube wells situated on the land concerned; and (3) Whether the offer regarding
payment of compensation for trees given by the Land Acquisition Officer could
be withdrawn in Section 18 proceedings.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6365-6382 of 1999 are concerned, the grounds challenged were
limited as indicated above.
Ganesh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, urged that in view
of the latest decision of Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr., reported in 2003 (6)
SCC 255, the claimants whose land were acquired by the Parishad and whose
proceedings are pending in the year 1984, are entitled to solatium as provided
under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. We find merit in the
submission. In view of the decision in Savitri Cairae's case (supra), it must
be held that each of the appellants are entitled to solatium @ 30%, interest
and additional compensation.
submission of learned senior counsel is that the claimants were entitled to
separate compensation for the Tube Well as well as for the structure standing
on the land and the High Court committed error while denying compensation for
the above items, although the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation
for those items. We find substance in the argument. However, learned counsel
appearing for the Parishad argued that the claimants were not entitled to
compensation for value of land and building separately and for that purpose
cited a decision of this Court in Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. that the said
decision is distinguishable. In that case we find that there was capitalisation
of the value of land and structure and, therefore, the claimants were not given
separate compensation for land and building. Here we find that there was no capitalisation
of value of land and structure by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award.
other hand, Land Acquisition Officer has given compensation separately for the
land, building and Tube Well. In that view of the matter claimants are entitled
to separate compensation for land, Tube Well and structure.
counsel appearing in C.A. Nos. 6383-6398 of 1999 urged that the High Court,
while deducting the development charges @ 10% from compensation, acted erroneously,
and in fact the deduction ought to have been between 30 to 40% and for that
purpose he relied on the decision in Shimla Development Authority and 1997 SC
1791. It is true that the deduction for development charges ought to be
adequately provided for, but it varies from place to place, area to area and
amount of developments which are required to be carried out and thus there
cannot be any fixed amount of deduction towards development charges. In the
present case, we find that the total land acquired was about 27 acres. We are,
therefore, of the view that it would be appropriate if the development charges
@ 25% is deducted from the compensation awarded to the claimants.
the aforesaid reasons, the orders and judgment under challenge are modified and
the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. + 5 659 2003 ! Punit
Rai Dinesh Chaudhary @ August
SINHA, J :
relating to castes, races and tribes of a person is governed by Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution of India. Article 341 reads thus:
The President may with respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is
a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification,
specify the castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races
or tribes or parts of or groups within castes, races or tribes which shall for
the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation
to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.
Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes
specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or
part of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as aforesaid a
notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent
notification." The object of Clause (1) of Article 341 is to provide
preferential right by way of protection to the members of the Scheduled Caste
having regard to the economic and educational backwardness from which they
suffer. It is in relation thereto the President has been authorised to limit
the notification to parts or groups within the castes. The notification issued
in terms of the said provision is exhaustive.
the caste or tribe of the person is to be determined depends upon several
factors including the customary laws.
President of India in exercise of his power conferred under Article 341(1) of
the Constitution of India notified Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
The tribe 'Pasi' admittedly finds place in the said notification whereas 'Kurmi'
does not. By reason of Articles 341 of the Constitution, a legal fiction is
created which is to be given its full effect.
has been defined in Collins English Dictionary as "any of the four major
hereditary classes, namely, the Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Sudra into which
Hindu society is divided".
caste system in India is engrained in Indian mind. A
person, in the absence of any statutory law, would inherit his caste from his
father and not his mother even in a case of inter-caste marriage.
'the caste system in India - Myth and Reality' by Dr. Rajendra
Pandey, the different attributes of the caste as unit mentioned by various
writers has been stated thus :
Basic (pivotal) attributes: Endogamy.
Sufficiently relevant attributes :
Membership by birth
Peripheral attributes :
the same pattern of attribute- hierarchy, the attributes that characterize
caste as system have been drawn up and set in as follows :
Basic attribute: Plurality of interacting endogamous groups.
Sufficiently relevant attribute: Hierarchy.
Peripheral attribute : Traditional division of labour.
these, Ghurye among others, has also mentioned segmental division of society,
hierarchy, restriction on feeding and social intercourse, and civil and
religious disabilities and privileges of the different sections as
characteristics of the caste.
them all, Nagendra has made mention of the principle of individual freedom as
one of the attributes of the caste, which seems to have been omitted by most of
summary, then, hierarchy, restricted commensality and connubium, hereditary
occupation and a clear-cut differentiation of functions, ritual observance, and
the principle of individual freedom are characteristics of the caste system
till today." In 'Caste in Modern India and other Essays' by M.N. Srinivas
at page 3, it is stated :
sociologist would define caste as a hereditary, endogamous, usually localized
group, having a traditional association with an occupation, and a particular
position in the local hierarchy of castes. Relations between castes are
governed, among other things by the concepts of pollution and purity, and
generally, maximum commensality occurs within the caste." In 'Caste and
the Law in India' by Justice S.B. Wad at page 30
under the heading 'Sociological Implications', it is stated :
a person belongs to a caste in which he is born. The caste of the parents
determines his caste but in case of re- conversion a person has the liberty to
renounce his casteless status and voluntarily accept his original caste. His
caste status at birth is not immutable. Change of religion does not necessarily
mean loss of caste. If the original caste does not positively disapprove, the
acceptance of the caste can be presumed.
acceptance can also be presumed if he is elected by a majority to a reserved
it appears that some dent is made on the classical concept of caste, it may be
noticed that the principle that caste is created by birth is not dethroned.
There is also a judicial recognition of caste autonomy including right to
outcaste a person." If he is considered to be a member of Scheduled Caste,
he has to and Others (1976) 1 SCR 82 and Principal, Guntur Medical College v. V. Y. Mohan Rao – (1976) 3 SCR
Christian by birth when converted to Hinduism and married a member of Scheduled
Caste was held to be belonging to her husband's caste on the evidence that she
had not only been accepted but also welcomed by the important members,
including the President and Vice- President of the community. [See Kailash Sonkar
vs. Smt. Maya Devi [AIR 1984 SC 600].
instant caste there is nothing on record to show that the Respondent has ever
been treated to be a member of Scheduled Caste. In fact evidence suggests that
he has not been so treated. He as well as his brothers and other members of his
family are married to persons belonging to his own caste i.e. 'Kurmi'.
was no attempt on the part of the respondent herein to bring on records any
material to the effect that he was treated as a member of 'Pasi' community.
Furthermore, no evidence has been brought on record to show that the family of
the respondent had adopted and had been practising the customary traits and
tenets of 'Pasi' community.
question as to whether a person belongs to a particular caste or not has to be
determined by the statutory authorities specified therefor.
Bench of this Court considered the scope of Article 341(1) and (2) (which is in
pari materia with Article 342(1) and (2)), and held that it is not open to any
person to lead evidence to establish that the caste to which he belongs to is
the same as and/ or part of another caste, which is included in the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) order, it was observed:
may be accepted that it is not open to make any modification in the Order by
producing evidence to show (for example) that though caste A alone is mentioned
in the Order, caste B is also a part of caste A and therefore must be deemed to
be included in caste A. It may also be accepted that wherever one caste has
another name it has been mentioned in brackets after it in the Order [see Aray
(Mala) Dakkal (Dokkalwar) etc.]. Therefore, generally speaking it would not be
open to any person to lead evidence to establish that caste B (in the example
quoted above) is part of caste A notified in the Order.
and Other [(1994) 6 SCC 241], this court denounced the practice of persons
claiming benefits conferred on STs by producing fake, false and fraudulent
admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false
social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the
Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine
candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or
appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status
certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort
to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the
Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to
educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date
many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who
may play fraud claiming false status certificate." Similar observations
have also been made in Director of Tribal A person in fact not belonging to
Scheduled Caste, if claims himself to be a member thereof by procuring a bogus
caste certificate, would be committing fraud on Constitution. No court of law
can encourage commission of such fraud.
Tribal Development, Thane and Others (Second) [(1997) 5 SCC 437] laid down the
As regards prayer (b) read with direction No. (iv) of the Order of this Court,
we too appreciate the inconvenience caused due to vast area of the State.
Therefore, instead of one committee of three officers, there will be three
Scheduled Tribe/Caste Scrutiny Committees comprising of five members with
quorum of three members, as suggested in para 4 of the directions, to take a
decision. At Pune, Nasik and Nagpur, six Caste Scrutiny Committees for SCs, Denotified
Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and the Special Backward
Category in existence at Mumbai, Pune, Nasik, Aurangabad, Amaravati and Nagpur
would continue to scrutinise the certificates issued by the respective officers
and take a decision in that behalf. In this regard, it is also suggested by Shri
Dholakia, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, that in case any
certificate has been wrongfully refused by the certificate issuing authority,
the aforestated Committees also would go into the question and decide in that
behalf, whether refusal was wrongful and in case it finds that the refusal was
wrongful, they are at liberty to direct the authority to grant the certificate.
With regard to prayer (d), along with the Vigilance Cell, one Research
Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer would be associated in
finding the social status of eligibility of the officers." Determination
of caste of a person is governed by the customary laws. A person under the
customary Hindu Law would be inheriting his caste from his father. In this case,
it is not denied or disputed that the respondent's father belonged to a 'Kurmi'
caste. He was, therefore, not a member of Scheduled Caste. The caste of the
father, therefore, will be the determinative factor in absence of any law.
however, has been placed upon a circular dated 3.3.1978 said to have been
issued by the State of Bihar which is in the following terms:
Determination of caste of a child born from Non-Schedule Caste Hindu father and
Schedule Caste mother.
the aforesaid subject as per instruction I have to state for the determination
of a child born from Non-Schedule Caste father and schedule caste mother, upon
deliberation it has been decided that child born from such parents will be
counted in the category of schedule caste.
such cases before the issue of caste certificate there will be a illegible
enquiry by the block development officer/ circle officer/ block welfare
officer." The said circular letter has not been issued by the State in
exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India.
not stated therein that the decision has been taken by the Cabinet or any
authority authorized in this behalf in terms of Article 166(3) of the
Constitution of India. It is trite that a circular letter being an
administrative instruction is not a law within the meaning of Article 13 of the
Constitution of India. (See Dwarka Nath A person can take the benefit of a
reserved category candidate if he satisfies the test laid down by the
Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the
guidelines issued by the Election Commission, if any.
opinion, the State has no jurisdiction to reserve a Constituency for a person
who does not belong to the reserved category for whose benefit it was
constituted except by way of a legislation.
customary law is to be given a go-bye for any purpose whatsoever and
particularly for the purpose of enlarging the scope of a notification issued by
the President of India under Clause (1) of Article 341 of Constitution of
India, the same must be done in terms of a statute and not otherwise.
High Court itself noticed that the caste certificate of the Respondent was
found to be forged by the Returning Officer and a criminal case is pending. It
if a person is born of a Kurmi father or in a Kurmi family then the presumption
goes that the child is Kurmi by caste. But here the respondent could make out a
special case that, although, he has been born of a Kurmi father but mother being
a Pasi, he is a Scheduled Caste and as such, a competent person to contest from
the Reserved Constituency." The High Court, therefore, erred in so far as
it failed to consider that for the purpose of determination of caste, the
Respondent could not have relied upon the circular letter dated 3.3.1978 in
absence of any law. In any event, it has not been shown by the Respondent as to
what enquiry was made for determination of his caste.
had taken part in some enquiry, he had special knowledge in respect thereof
within the meaning of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
therefore, was bound to prove the same by bringing on records relevant evidence
which was in his power or possession.
special case is to be made out, the same has to be done in accordance with law.
It must meet the legal requirement.
this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the High Court. The
impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.
to aforementioned, I respectfully agree with the opinion of my learned brother.