When, if Ever, Can the Sub-Registrar or State Authorities Determine the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Status of a Caste Not Expressly Included in the Presidential Notification? — Orissa High Court Reaffirms the Finality of Presidential Orders as Binding Authority

High Court clarifies that the determination of whether a caste or sub-caste falls within the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe category is exclusively within the domain of the Presidential notification; neither State authorities nor Courts may alter, add to, or interpret beyond those notifications. The judgment affirms and applies long-standing precedent, providing binding authority on all subordinate courts and registration authorities in Odisha regarding sale deed registration where caste status is questioned.

 

Summary

Category Data
Case Name WP(C)/21156/2025 of NARENDRA BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA
CNR ODHC010473422025
Date of Registration 29-07-2025
Decision Date 17-10-2025
Disposal Nature Disposed Off
Judgment Author MR. JUSTICE ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA
Court Orissa High Court
Bench Single Judge (Justice Ananda Chandra Behera)
Precedent Value Binding on subordinate courts and registration authorities within Odisha; persuasive for other jurisdictions
Overrules / Affirms Affirms prior precedent; applies established law
Type of Law Constitutional law; property law; registration law
Questions of Law Whether any authority other than Parliament (via Presidential notification) can determine or declare a caste (or sub-caste) as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for the purpose of legal rights and restrictions, especially in respect of property transfer restrictions under the OLR Act and Registration Act (Odisha Amendment).
Ratio Decidendi The Court holds that only the Presidential notification (under Articles 341/342) is determinative of whether a caste or sub-caste is recognised as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. No authority, whether Sub-Registrar, Tahsildar, State Government, or even the Courts, can alter, add, interpret, or pronounce upon the inclusion or exclusion of a caste/sub-caste in these lists beyond the clear text of the Presidential order. The impugned registration order, based on an unauthorised extension by the Tahasildar, is unsustainable.
Judgments Relied Upon
  • Duryodhan Rana v. Jhima Mahura (2009 (I) CLR 7)
  • Bebirani Baral v. Sankhalata Sahoo (107 (2009) CLT 669)
  • State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Gurusamy (AIR 1997 SC 1199)
  • Bikal Rout v. Dhobani Bewa (119 (2015) CLT 213)
  • Bijay Kumar Jally v. Member, Board of Revenue (2010 (II) OLR 1010)
  • Smt. Sucheta Samanta v. Bidyutlata Nayak (2010 (Supp-II) OLR 1052)
  • Banamali Sa v. State of Orissa (2014 (II) CLR 558)
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court Only Parliament (via Presidential notification) can amend, clarify, or extend the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe lists. The jurisdiction of civil courts and State authorities is impliedly prohibited.
Facts as Summarised by the Court Petitioners, whose caste is “Kurunga Badhei,” were denied registration of a sale deed by the Sub-Registrar on the basis of a Tahasildar’s report classifying their caste as Scheduled Caste (Kurunga), which appears in the Presidential notification, while “Kurunga Badhei” does not. The Registrar refused to register the deed citing legal restrictions on transfer by members of a Scheduled Caste to a general caste purchaser. The petitioners contested, asserting that as per the Presidential notification, they are not Scheduled Caste and restrictions do not apply.

Practical Impact

Category Impact
Binding On All subordinate courts and registration authorities within the jurisdiction of the Orissa High Court
Persuasive For Other High Courts; may be cited before the Supreme Court and in other states for analogous issues
Follows
  • Duryodhan Rana v. Jhima Mahura (2009 (I) CLR 7)
  • Bebirani Baral v. Sankhalata Sahoo (107 (2009) CLT 669)
  • State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Gurusamy (AIR 1997 SC 1199)
  • Bikal Rout v. Dhobani Bewa (119 (2015) CLT 213)
  • Bijay Kumar Jally v. Member, Board of Revenue (2010 (II) OLR 1010)
  • Smt. Sucheta Samanta v. Bidyutlata Nayak (2010 (Supp-II) OLR 1052)
  • Banamali Sa v. State of Orissa (2014 (II) CLR 558)

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

  • The authority of Sub-Registrars and Tahsildars does not extend to determining or opining on caste or sub-caste inclusion in Scheduled Caste/Tribe lists for registration purposes.
  • The High Court reiterates that only the caste names expressly mentioned in the Presidential notification are relevant; sub-castes not brought within the notification cannot be treated as included by implication or administrative interpretation.
  • Administrative reports or opinions cannot override the Presidential notification; disputes of caste inclusion must be addressed legislatively, not administratively.
  • The decision provides clear authority for challenging denial of registration of sale deeds where the refusal is not supported by the explicit language of the Presidential notification.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

  • The judgment begins with a survey of the legal stance that the lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes as declared by the President are final and exhaustive.
  • It recounts a line of decisions which consistently hold that only Parliament, by amending the Presidential notification, can include or exclude castes/sub-castes from these lists.
  • The Court explicitly rejects the jurisdiction of State authorities (including revenue officials and Sub-Registrars) or even courts to interpret, expand, or modify the castes shown in the notification.
  • Applying this principle, the Court notes that the petitioners’ caste (“Kurunga Badhei”) is not included as a Scheduled Caste in the notification, even though “Kurunga” is.
  • The refusal to register the sale deed based on a report by the Tahasildar, and the Sub-Registrar’s reliance on it, is therefore ultra vires and unsustainable.
  • The Court directs immediate rectification by allowing registration of the sale deed, referencing Banamali Sa v. State of Orissa (where a similar misclassification was judicially corrected).

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

  • Asserted that their caste, “Kurunga Badhei,” is not included as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in the relevant Presidential notification.
  • Challenged the authority of State officials and the Sub-Registrar to determine or declare otherwise.
  • Sought quashing of the Sub-Registrar’s refusal order and a direction to register the sale deed.

Respondent (State/Opposite Parties)

  • Relied on the report of the Tahasildar that “Kurunga” is recognised as a Scheduled Caste.
  • Justified refusal of registration under Section 22 of the OLR Act and relevant provisions of the Registration Act, as amended in Odisha, prohibiting sale by members of SC/ST to non-SC/ST purchasers without permission.

Factual Background

The petitioners are owners of land in Mouza-Indpai, Mayurbhanj district, Odisha, classified in official records as belonging to the “Kurunga Badhei” caste. They wished to sell their land to an individual from the general category and presented the sale deed for registration. The District Sub-Registrar refused to register the deed, citing a Tahasildar’s report categorising them under Scheduled Caste (“Kurunga”). The petitioners challenged this order, pointing out their caste is not listed as Scheduled Caste under the latest Presidential notification, and thus the legal restrictions did not apply.

Statutory Analysis

  • Articles 341/342 of Constitution: Only Presidential notification or an Act of Parliament can include/exclude castes in SC/ST lists.
  • Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960: Restricts sale of land by persons belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes without permission.
  • Section 22(a)(1)(c) of the Registration Act (Odisha Amendment Act, 2013): Bars registration of certain documents in contravention of the OLR Act.
  • The legal restrictions triggered by these statutes apply only when the party’s caste is expressly recognised as SC/ST in the Presidential order—not by administrative or quasi-judicial determination.

Alert Indicators

  • ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Comments

No comments to show.