Jharkhand man listed as SC cannot automatically be treated as an Odisha ST; Orissa High Court orders sale deed registration without tribal-land permission

The petitioner, a Jharkhand resident whose caste, “Bhuiya,” is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand, owned land in Mayurbhanj, Odisha.

He presented a sale deed for registration, but the Sub-Registrar refused to accept it.

The District Registrar-cum-ADM subsequently informed him that Bhuiya is a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha and that permission under Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956 was required.

The petitioner challenged that requirement, contending that he could not be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha and that the Regulation did not apply to him.

The State filed no counter-affidavit but opposed the petition orally.

1. Whether a person migrating from one State to another may claim in the destination State the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status recognised in the State of origin

2. Whether the petitioner, whose caste is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand but is listed as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, could automatically be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, thereby attracting Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956 and Section 22 of the OLR Act

Articles 341(1) and 342(1) of the Constitution provide for specification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, respectively, “in relation to” a particular State or Union Territory; the status and associated benefits are therefore State-specific.

Under Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130, migration does not extinguish a person’s caste identity, but the person does not carry the originating State’s Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status and its associated privileges into another State.

Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 244, likewise holds that inclusion in a State’s list does not automatically confer Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe status in another State, even where the same community name appears in both lists.

Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956 and Section 22 of the OLR Act, as applied in this judgment, concern restrictions applicable to Scheduled Tribes in Odisha.

The Court applied the State-specific character of Articles 341 and 342 to reject both parties’ positions.

The petitioner could not claim Scheduled Caste status in Odisha merely because Bhuiya is recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand.

Conversely, the fact that Bhuiya appears in Odisha’s Scheduled Tribe list did not automatically make this petitioner a Scheduled Tribe member in Odisha, given that his relevant status was as a member of a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand.

The District Registrar therefore erred in requiring permission under Regulation 2 of 1956: the petitioner could not, on the basis of the facts before the Court, be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, and the Court held that neither the Regulation nor Section 22 of the OLR Act applied to him.

It directed the Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahasildar, Kuliana, to register the sale deed within three days after production of a certified copy of the judgment, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.