BINOY KRISHNA DAS vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.17774 of 2026
ODHC010423102026
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
---------------
Binoy Krishna Das Petitioner
……
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others Opp. Parties
..….
Advocate(s) appeared in this case: -
_____________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. N.M. Praharaj, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Patnaik,
[Additional Government Advocate]
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
16 October, 2026
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
Refusal by the registering authority to register the sale
deed presented by the petitioner is under challenge in this
writ application.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a
resident of the State of Jharkhand but because of his
trading business, he resides in Baripada on rent. He owns
1 14
Page of
landed property measuring Ac.0.14 decimals appertaining to
Khata No.182/52, Plot No.311/906, situated at Mouza-
Gangraj, Tahasil-Kuliana, District-Mayurbhanj, Odisha,
which stands recorded in his name in the ROR. He belongs
to the ‘Bhuiya’ caste, which is a Scheduled Caste in
Jharkhand. Caste Certificate, Aadhaar Card and Pan Card
have been issued in his favour depicting his caste as such.
The petitioner decided to dispose of the aforementioned
property in order to meet the medical expenses of his
treatment and also to clear a hand loan. Accordingly, he
contacted one Manas Ranjan Sethy, a person belonging to
the Scheduled Caste to purchase the property. As per
agreement, the purchaser paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the
petitioner and took possession of the property. A sale deed
was prepared on 17.03.2026 and presented before the
Tahasildar, Kuliana for registration by paying stamp duty
and registration fees. The Sub-Registrar refused to accept
the instrument but did not pass any order.
3. The petitioner filed a petition on 24.03.2026 before the
District Registrar-cum-A.D.M., Mayurbhanj for necessary
2 14
Page of
direction to the Sub-Registrar. However, by letter dated
23.04.2026, the petitioner was informed that ‘Bhuiya’
belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and as per Section 3(1)
and Section 3(1)(iii) of Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956, he was
required to obtain permission of the competent authority to
sell the property. He was asked to resubmit the sale deed
after obtaining such permission. According to the petitioner,
he being a Scheduled Caste person in Jharkhand, has to be
treated as such in the State of Odisha, as he cannot become
a member of the Scheduled Tribe Community. The
provisions of Regulation 2 of 1956 do not apply to a
Scheduled Caste person. Since the caste cannot be changed,
the petitioner has to be treated as Scheduled Caste and as
the purchaser is also a Scheduled Caste person, no
permission is necessary. On such facts, the Writ Petition
has been filed seeking the following relief: -
“The petitioner therefore, prays that this Hon‟ble Court
graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate
writ/order(s)/direction(s) directing the Opposite Party
No.4 (Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahasildar, Kuliana) to accept
the instrument for registration and to pass any other
appropriate order(s) as this Hon‟ble Court deems fit and
proper:
3 14
Page of
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray.”
4. The State has not filed any counter but the State
counsel preferred to make oral submissions.
5. Heard Mr. N.M. Praharaj, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.N. Patnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
6. Mr. Praharaj would argue that caste is a birth-based
identity, which cannot be changed. The caste inherited by a
person from his parents is a permanent social status.
Therefore, the petitioner being a Scheduled Caste person in
the State of Jharkhand has to be treated as a Scheduled
Caste in Odisha. Though, the same caste, ‘Bhuiya’, is
included in the Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, the petitioner
cannot be treated as a Scheduled Tribe person. According to
Mr. Praharaj therefore, Regulation 2 of 1956 will not be
applicable at all. Moreover, he does not claim any benefit
like reservation in service etc. on account of his caste. Mr.
Praharaj sums up his argument by submitting that since in
the instant case, he being the vendor as well as the vendee
4 14
Page of
belong to the Scheduled Caste, no permission as
contemplated under Section 22 of the OLR Act is necessary
to sell the property.
7. Per contra, Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional
Government Advocate would submit that ‘Bhuiya’ is a
Scheduled Caste in the State of Jharkhand but is included
in the list of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Odisha.
Therefore, unless the petitioner obtains a caste certificate
depicting him as Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, he cannot be
allowed to sell his property to the vendee, who admittedly is
not a Scheduled Tribe person. The provisions of the
Regulation 2 are mandatory and therefore, the registering
authority cannot be faulted for refusing to register the
instrument.
8. This Court has heard the parties at length and has
given its anxious consideration to the contentions raised.
Having done so, this Court is unable to persuade itself to
accept either contention, the reasons for which are
delineated hereinafter.
5 14
Page of
9. Admittedly, the petitioner is treated as Scheduled
Caste person in the State of Jharkhand. In Odisha, ‘Bhuiya’
is not a Scheduled Caste but included in the list of
Scheduled Tribes. Two questions arise for consideration-
firstly, whether it is permissible for a person to carry his
caste-based identity while migrating and claim any benefit
in another State and, secondly, whether the petitioner in the
instant case, can be treated as Scheduled Tribe since the
very same caste is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in
Odisha. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the
relevant provisions of the Constitution namely, Articles 341
and 342 which are reproduced below: -
“ 341. Scheduled Castes
(1)The President may with respect to any State or
Union territory, and where it is a State after
consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification, specify the castes, races or tribes or parts
of or group 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.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from
the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification
issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part
of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as
aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause
shall not be varied by any subsequent notification .
342. Scheduled Tribes
(1)The President may with respect to any State or
Union territory, and where it is a State after
6 14
Page of
consultation with the Governor thereof, by public
notification specify the tribes or tribal communities or
parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities
which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be
deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State
or Union territory, as the case may be.
(2)Parliament may by law include in or exclude from
the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification
issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or
part of or group within any tribe or tribal community,
but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the
said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent
notification.”
[Emphasis added]
10. On a plain reading of these provisions, it would be
clear that the notification specifying the caste or the tribe
shall be in relation to a State or Union Territory, as the
case may be. In other words, it is region-specific and not
person-specific. It is no longer res integra that when a
person travels from one State to another, his status does
not travel with him for the purpose of being treated as
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be.
In the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao V. Seth
1
G.S. Medical College , the Supreme Court was seized of
a similar question. Interpreting Articles 341 and 342, the
Court recognized that a person does not cease to belong
to his caste by migration, but held that: -
1
(1990) 3 SCC 130
7 14
Page of
“ 10. It has, however, to be borne in mind that a man
does not cease to belong to his caste by migration to a
better or more socially free and liberal atmosphere.
xx xx xx
12. It is, however, necessary to give proper meaning to
the expressions „for the purposes of this Constitution‟
and „in relation to that State‟ appearing in Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat
has taken the view in two decisions, namely, Kum
Manju Singh v. Dean, B.J. Medical College [AIR 1986
Guj 175 : 1986 Guj LH 483] and Ghanshyam Kisan
Borikar v. L.D. Engineering College [AIR 1987 Guj 83 :
1986 Guj LH 802] to which our attention was drawn,
that the phrase „for the purposes of this Constitution‟
cannot be and should not be made subservient to the
phrase „in relation to that State‟ and therefore, it was
held in those two decisions that in consequence the
classification made by one State placing a particular
caste or tribe in the category of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes would entitle a member of that caste
or tribe to all the benefits, privileges and protections
under the Constitution of India. A similar view has been
taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of P.M.
Muni Reddy v. Karnataka Public Service Commission
[1981 Lab IC 1345 (Kant)] . On the other hand, the
Orissa High Court in the case of K. Appa Rao v. Director
of Posts & Telegraphs, Orissa [AIR 1969 Ori 220 : 35
Cut LT 55] and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court
in M.S. Malathi v. Commissioner, Nagpur Division [AIR
1989 Bom 138 : (1988) 90 Bom LR 532] have taken the
view that in view of the expression „in relation to that
State‟ occurring in Articles 341 and 342, the benefit of
the status of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes
would be available only in the State in respect of which
the caste or tribe is so specified. A similar view has been
taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the
case of V.B. Singh v. State of Punjab [ILR (1976) 1 P & H
769] .
13. xx xx xx xx xx
But when a Scheduled Caste or Tribe migrates, there is
no inhibition in migrating but when he migrates, he does
not and cannot carry any special rights or privileges
attributed to him or granted to him in the original State
specified for that State or area or part thereof. If that
right is not given in the migrated State it does not
interfere with his constitutional right of equality or of
migration or of carrying on his trade, business or
8 14
Page of
profession. Neither Article 14, 16, 19 nor Article 21 is
denuded by migration but he must enjoy those rights in
accordance with the law if they are otherwise followed
in the place where he migrates. There should be
harmonious construction, harmonious in the sense that
both parts or all parts of a constitutional provision
should be so read that one part does not become
nugatory to the other or denuded to the other but all
parts must be read in the context in which these are
used. It was contended that the only way in which the
fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14,
19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) could be given effect to is
by construing Article 342 in a manner by which a
member of a Scheduled Tribe gets the benefit of that
status for the purposes of the Constitution throughout
the territory of India. It was submitted that the words
“for the purposes of this Constitution” must be given full
effect. There is no dispute about that. The words “for the
purposes of this Constitution” must mean that a
Scheduled Caste so designated must have right under
Articles 14, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as
these are applicable to him in his area where he
migrates or where he goes. The expression “in relation to
that State” would become nugatory if in all States the
special privileges or the rights granted to Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes are carried forward. It will
also be inconsistent with the whole purpose of the
scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may require protection
because a boy or a child who grows in that area is
inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that
caste or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other
castes or tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that
atmosphere of Maharashtra as a young boy or a child
and goes in a completely different atmosphere or
Maharashtra where this inhibition or this disadvantage
is not there, then he cannot be said to have that
reservation which will denude the children or the people
of Maharashtra belonging to any segment of that State
who may still require that protection. After all, it has to
be borne in mind that the protection is necessary for the
disadvantaged castes or tribes of Maharashtra as well
as disadvantaged castes or tribes of Andhra Pradesh.
Thus, balancing must be done as between those who
need protection and those who need no protection, i.e.,
who belong to advantaged castes or tribes and who do
not. Treating the determination under Articles 341 and
9 14
Page of
342 of the Constitution to be valid for all over the
country would be in negation to the very purpose and
scheme and language of Article 341 read with Article
15(4) of the Constitution.
xx xx xx”
[Emphasis added]
11. Thus, a person migrating to another State does
not carry with him the status of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe that he enjoys in his original State. His
status in the State to which he moves is governed solely
by the Presidential notification in relation to that State.
The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in the
case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate
2
to SCs/STs v. Union of India , the Supreme Court held
as follows: -
“3. On a plain reading of clause (1) of Articles 341 and
342 it is manifest that the power of the President is
limited to specifying the castes or tribes which shall, for
the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in relation to a
State or a Union Territory, as the case may be. Once a
notification is issued under clause (1) of Articles 341
and 342 of the Constitution, Parliament can by law
include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes, specified in the notification, any caste
or tribe but save for that limited purpose the notification
issued under clause (1), shall not be varied by any
subsequent notification. What is important to notice is
that the castes or tribes have to be specified in relation
to a given State or Union Territory. That means a given
caste or tribe can be a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in relation to the State or Union Territory for which
2
(1994) 5 SCC 244
10 14
Page of
it is specified. These are the relevant provisions with
which we shall be concerned while dealing with the
grievance made in this petition.
xx xx xx
16. We may add that considerations for specifying a
particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the list
of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward
classes in a given State would depend on the nature
and extent of disadvantages and social hardships
suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State which
may be totally non est in another State to which persons
belonging thereto may migrate. Coincidentally it may be
that a caste or tribe bearing the same nomenclature is
specified in two States but the considerations on the
basis of which they have been specified may be totally
different. So also the degree of disadvantages of various
elements which constitute the input for specification
may also be totally different. Therefore, merely because
a given caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled
Caste does not necessarily mean that if there be another
caste bearing the same nomenclature in another State
the person belonging to the former would be entitled to
the rights, privileges and benefits admissible to a
member of the Scheduled Caste of the latter State “for
the purposes of this Constitution”. This is an aspect
which has to be kept in mind and which was very much
in the minds of the Constitution-makers as is evident
from the choice of language of Articles 341 and 342 of
the Constitution. That is why in answer to a question by
Mr Jaipal Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:
“He asked me another question and it was this.
Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe living in a
tribal area migrates to another part of the territory of
India, which is outside both the scheduled area and the
tribal area, will he be able to claim from the local
Government, within whose jurisdiction he may be
residing the same privileges which he would be entitled
to when he is residing within the scheduled area or
within the tribal area? It is a difficult question for me to
answer. If that matter is agitated in quarters where a
decision on a matter like this would lie, we would
certainly be able to give some answer to the question in
the form of some clause in this Constitution. But so far
as the present Constitution stands, a member of a
Scheduled Tribe going outside the scheduled area or
tribal area would certainly not be entitled to carry with
him the privileges that he is entitled to when he is
11 14
Page of
residing in a scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I
can see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce the
provisions that apply to tribal areas or scheduled areas,
in areas other than those which are covered by them….”
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench ruled
that the petitioner was not entitled to admission to the
medical college on the basis that he belonged to a
Scheduled Tribe in the State of his origin.”
[Emphasis added]
12. Plainly understood, the Presidential notification
containing the lists of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled
Tribe communities is prepared looking at the socio-
economic development of the particular caste/tribe vis-à-
vis the State. The same socio-economic conditions may
not exist in another State. That is why, the Supreme
Court in the above referred judgments, held that a person
cannot carry his caste-based identity and privileges with
him while migrating to another State.
13. This also answers the second question framed for
consideration by this Court in paragraph - 9 to the effect
that no person can claim to be included as a Scheduled
Tribe in the State of Odisha, unless the tribe to which he
belongs is included in the Presidential notification in
relation to that State. Since the petitioner cannot claim to
be Scheduled Caste in the State of Odisha for want of
12 14
Page of
notifying the caste ‘Bhuiya’ as such, by the same analogy,
he cannot be automatically included in the list of
Scheduled Tribes either. The entry in the Presidential
notification is specific to Odisha and does not extend to a
person belonging to the 'Bhuiya' caste in the State of
Jharkhand, where it is notified as a Scheduled Caste.
14. The District Registrar-cum-A.D.M. has lost sight
of this fundamental aspect by calling upon the petitioner
to obtain permission under Regulation 2 of 1956. If the
petitioner cannot be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in the
State of Odisha, how can the provisions of Regulation 2 of
1956 apply?
15. Obviously, Regulation 2 of 1956 applies only to
Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Tribe means a tribe
notified as such for the State of Odisha. It also goes
without saying that since the petitioner, in so far as the
State of Odisha is concerned, does not belong to either SC
or ST, the provisions of Section 22 of the OLR Act would
also not be attracted. This Court, therefore, is constrained
to observe that the impugned letter asking the petitioner
13 14
Page of
to resubmit the deed for registration after obtaining
permission under Regulation 2 of 1956 cannot be
sustained being bad in law, though, not for the reasons
cited by the parties before this Court.
16. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The impugned letter dated 23.04.2026 of the
District Registrar-cum-ADM, Mayurbhanj is quashed. The
Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahasildar, Kuliana is directed to
register the sale deed already presented by the petitioner
within three days from the date of production of certified
copy of this order by the petitioner, subject to compliance
with other statutory requirements.
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
th
16 October, 2026 Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Stenographer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI
Designation: JUNIOR STENOGRAPHER
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 16-Oct-2026 19:17:11
14 14
Page of