The High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that courts possess no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the list of Scheduled Tribes notified under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, affirming that the Presidential Order is final and conclusive. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru set aside an appellate court judgment which had erroneously treated the ‘Shikari’ caste as a Scheduled Tribe in Janjgir-Champa district contrary to the specific area restrictions in the Constitutional Order.
The core legal issue determined by the Court was the sanctity of the Presidential Order issued under Article 342. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that the status of a caste or community as a Scheduled Tribe is area-specific and determined solely by the Presidential Order. In this case, the Court ruled that the First Appellate Court committed a patent error in law by extending Scheduled Tribe status to the ‘Shikari’ community in Pamgarh Tahsil, where no such notification existed.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by Tek Ram (Appellant) against the judgment of the 3rd Additional District Judge, Janjgir. The dispute involved agricultural land purchased by the Appellant from Manharan Singh and others via a registered sale deed on March 11, 1977.
Decades later, the Defendants (Prahlad and others) threatened to dispossess the Appellant, claiming they had obtained an order from the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) under Section 170(B) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959. This section restricts land transfers from tribals to non-tribals. The Defendants claimed the land originally belonged to the ‘Shikari’ community, which they asserted was an aboriginal tribe, rendering the 1977 sale illegal.
The Trial Court had ruled in favor of the Appellant, finding that ‘Shikari’ was not a Scheduled Tribe in Janjgir. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this, holding that the community was a Scheduled Tribe under a 1960 notification, thereby barring the Civil Court’s jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Code.
Arguments
The Appellant’s counsel argued that the First Appellate Court ignored the specific area restrictions in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. It was submitted that as per Chapter I Part-VIII (Madhya Pradesh) of the Order, the ‘Shikari’ community is notified as a Scheduled Tribe only in the Bilaspur and Katghora Tahsils of Bilaspur District, and not in the Pamgarh Tahsil of Janjgir District.
The Respondents contended that the transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal automatically attracted the provisions of Section 170(B) and that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the revenue authority’s order.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The Court observed that “As per Part-VIII (Madhya Pradesh), Serial No. 40, the ‘Shikari’ community is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe only in Bilaspur and Katghora Tahsils of Bilaspur District, and not in Janjgir-Champa.”
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors. (2001), the High Court emphasized:
“Courts have no power to add to, subtract from, or modify the list of Scheduled Tribes notified under Article 342, and that the Presidential Order is final and conclusive.”
The Court held that the First Appellate Court could not legally expand the definition of Scheduled Tribes to include residents of Pamgarh Tahsil when the Presidential Order did not include that territory for the ‘Shikari’ caste. Consequently, the jurisdictional fact required to invoke Section 170(B) of the Land Revenue Code—that the transferor belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the notified area—was absent.
“In the absence of statutory recognition of the Shikari caste as a Scheduled Tribe in the concerned area… the proceedings initiated under Section 170(B) were wholly without jurisdiction.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the decree of the Trial Court. The Court clarified that since the revenue proceedings were without jurisdiction, the bar under Section 257 of the Code did not apply, and the Civil Court was competent to grant the injunction protecting the Appellant’s possession.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Tek Ram v. Prahlad (Died) & Ors.
- Case No: SA No. 125 of 2015
- Coram: Justice Bibhu Datta Guru
