# Raj Mangal Gond v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23865 of 2022
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ajit Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-mangal-gond-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49130
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342(2) -
Scheduled
Caste
and
Scheduled
Tribe
Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Gond
Caste - Caste Certificate - Held - authority
i.e. the Tehsildar, which had earlier issued
the Caste Certificate had no jurisdiction to
cancel the same except when the Caste
Certificate had been obtained by playing
fraud or by concealing any relevant fact - In
the instant case the Tehsildar cancelled the
Caste Certificate issued by him, holding that
the petitioner was not of the Gond Caste but
was of the Kahar caste, but there was no
finding in the impugned order that the
earlier certificate was obtained by the
petitioner by playing fraud on any authority
- the impugned order quashed and set aside.
(Para 7)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Raj Mangal Gond Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
161
and 1.1.2022 passed by the respondent no.
4 were passed without any jurisdiction.
Since the Court holds that the resolutions
were passed without any authority of law,
we do not consider it appropriate to suggest
that
the
petitioners
ought
to
have
approached the alternative forum. Since
now, we have held that the resolutions were
passed without any authority of law, we
also hold that the order dated 2.1.2022
passed by the respondent no.6 was passed
without
any
authority
of
law.
The
resolutions dated 20.12.2021 and 1.1.2022
and the order dated 2.1.2022 are quashed
and are set-aside.

14. On the date, when the
judgement was reserved there was a
statement
given
by
the
Election
Commission that no election till that
date had taken place.

15. Under such circumstances, we
further direct that if the elections have till
date not taken place, they be held forthwith
in accordance with law.

16. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 161
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 23865 of 2022
Connected With
Writ C No. 23942 of 2022
And
Writ C No. 26680 of 2022
And
Writ C No. 25749 of 2022
Raj Mangal Gond ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Mohan Misra, Sri Swatantra
Pratap Singh, Sri H.R. Misra, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 342(2) -
Scheduled
Caste
and
Scheduled
Tribe
Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 - Gond
Caste - Caste Certificate - Held - authority
i.e. the Tehsildar, which had earlier issued
the Caste Certificate had no jurisdiction to
cancel the same except when the Caste
Certificate had been obtained by playing
fraud or by concealing any relevant fact - In
the instant case the Tehsildar cancelled the
Caste Certificate issued by him, holding that
the petitioner was not of the Gond Caste but
was of the Kahar caste, but there was no
finding in the impugned order that the
earlier certificate was obtained by the
petitioner by playing fraud on any authority
- the impugned order quashed and set aside.
(Para 7)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hizwana Bano Vs St.of U.P. & ors., 2011(1)
ADJ 440 (DB),

2. Praveen Kumar Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2014(8)
ADJ 690 (DB),

3. Rajesh Kumar Gond Vs St.of U.P. & ors.
2015(8)ADJ 275 (DB),

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner who claimed himself
to be a Gond with a permanent domicile of
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Village Kasamriya, District Maharajganj
had a Caste Certificate of being a
Scheduled Caste which was dated 6.6.1996.
However, when the parliament in the
exercise of its power under Article 342(2)
of the Constitution of India brought the
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002 and had
considered Gond Caste residing in the
District Maharajganj to be of the Scheduled
Tribe, the petitioner again applied for a
certificate holding that the petitioner was of
the Scheduled Tribe. When the Tehsildar
who was adjudicating the matter held that
the petitioner was not of the Gond Caste
but was of the Kahar caste, the petitioner
challenged the matter before the District
level
Caste
Scrutiny
Committee,
Maharajganj. On 04.10.2014 the District
level
Caste
Scrutiny
Committee,
Maharajganj remitted the matter back to the
Tehsildar for examining the evidence and
directed him to reconsider the evidence and
thereafter to issue the Caste Certificate in
accordance with law. On 27.11.2014, the
Tehsildar issued a Caste Certificate to the
petitioner
which
indicated
that
the
petitioner was of the Scheduled Tribe. The
Caste Certificate according to the petitioner
which was issued on 27.11.2014 was a
certificate, which was issued by hand and
since there were subsequent Government
Orders which desired that a candidate had
to have a Caste Certificate "On-line" the
petitioner applied again for the issuing of a
Caste Certificate "On-line". The petitioner
alongwith certain other individuals who
were also of the Scheduled Tribe applied
for the issuing of the Caste Certificate Online. The applications, however, were
rejected in a mechanical manner and,
therefore, the petitioner along with certain
other individuals filed a writ petition being
Writ-C No. 15552 of 2020 (Anoop Kumar
Gond and 70 Others vs. State of U.P. and 4
Others), which was disposed of on
12.10.2020 with the following order:-

"This writ petition has been filed,
inter alia, for the following relief;

"(i) Issue a writ order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to take into
consideration the Census-1891 for issuance
of Scheduled Tribe certificate to the
petitioners."

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners stated that the petitioners have
filed applications before the concerned
Tehsildars
for
issuance
of
Caste
Certificates but till date no order has been
passed.

Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the
case, we grant liberty to the the petitioners
to make a comprehensive representation
before
the
respondent-Tehsildars
for
passing
appropriate
orders
on
their
applications filed for issuance of Caste
Certificates within two weeks from today
along with a copy of this order enclosing
therewith a copy of the writ petition and its
annexures and, if any such representation is
made, the said authority shall make all
endeavour
to
consider
and
pass
appropriate
orders
on
the
same
in
accordance
with
law
expeditiously
preferably within 60 days from the date of
receipt of the said representation.

The writ petition stands disposed
of. "

3. Thereafter, in pursuance of the
High Court's order, the impugned order
dated 26.2.2021 was passed by the
Tehsildar- Sadar, District Maharajganj. His
order has been based on a certain enquiry
1 All. Raj Mangal Gond Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
report of the revenue authorities. Since the
orders of the Tehsildar had rejected the
claim of the petitioner to be declared as a
Gond, which was Scheduled Tribe and he
had in fact considered him as "Kahar", the
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that
when
earlier
the
Tehsildar
on
27.11.2014 had already passed an order to
the effect that the petitioner was to be
considered a member of the Scheduled
Tribe and a certificate was also issued to
that effect then the Tehsildar, who did not
have the authority or jurisdiction to hold a
fresh enquiry in support of the claim of the
petitioner while considering the claim of
the petitioner to issue On-line Caste
Certificate, could not pass the order
impugned.
Learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that the matter ought to
have been referred by the Tehsildar, if he
was doubting whether the petitioner was of
the Scheduled Tribe, to the District Level
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Maharajganj.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the Caste Scrutiny Committee
was formed by the State Government, as
per
the
Government
Order
dated
28.02.2011. Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner relied upon the paragraphs no. 3
and 4 of the Government Order which are
being reproduced here asunder:-

" 3- blh lanHkZ esa nk;j fjV ;kfpdk
la[;k& 1396 @2011 1⁄4 ih0vkbZ0,y01⁄2 Fkk: 'kfDr
lfefr egjktxat o vU; cuke m0iz0 jkT; o vU;
esa tkfr izek.ki=ksa ds lR;kiu ds laca/k esa ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 12-1-2011 esa fn;s x;s
laoh{k.k ds ifjizs{; esa tkfr izek.k i=ksa ds lR;kiu
dh O;oLFkk dks vkSj vf/kd ikjn'khZ rFkk lqxe cuk;s
tkus gsrq tuin Lrj ij Hkh fuEukuqlkj lfefr xfBr
dh tkrh gS%&

1- ftykf/kdkjh v/;{k

2- ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ukfer lnL;

,d vij ftykf/kdkjh Lrj dk vf/kdkjh

3- ftykf/kdkjh }kjk ukfer ,d mi
ftykf/kdkjh lnL;

4- ftyk lekt dY;k.k vf/kdkjh lnL;
lfpo

1⁄4vu0 tkfr@vuq0 tutkfr gsrq1⁄2 ,oa
ftyk fiNM+k oxZ dY;k.k vf/kdkjh

1⁄4vU; fiNM+k oxZ gsrq1⁄2

mijksDr lfefr ds le{k ;FkkfLFkfr
vH;FkhZ ds }kjk Lo;a] mlds ekrk&firk ;k vfHkHkkod
}kjk fdlh 'kSf{kd laLFkk esa izos'k gsrq vFkok fdlh
lsok esa fu;qfDr ds fy, tkfr izek.k i=ksa ds lR;kiu
gsrq vkosnu izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk] ftl ij lfefr }kjk
lR;kiu dh iqf"V foyEcre 15 fnu esa dj nh
tk;sxhA

4& blds vfrfjDr mDr lfefr }kjk
tkfr izek.ki=ksa ds laca/k esa fuEu izdkj ds ekeyksa dk
Hkh fuLrkj.k fd;k tk;sxk %&

1- fdlh fu;qfDr ds i'pkr lsok;kstu
}kjk lsod ds tkfr izek.k i= ds lR;kiu @iqf"V gsrq
izLrqr fd;s x;s ekeys A

2- fdlh O;fDr vFkok O;fDr;ksa ds lewg
ds lac/k esa tkfr izek.k i=ksa ds u cuk;s tkus laca/kh
f'kdk;rksa ds ekeysA

3- tkfr izek.ki=ksa ds QthZ gksus vFkok
=`fViw.kZ tkfr izek.k i= cuk;s tkus laca/kh ekeysA

4- tkfr izek.ki=ksa ds laca/k esa fdlh vU;
folaxfr ds ekeysA "

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in this regard also relied upon the
judgements reported in 2011(1) ADJ 440
(DB), Hizwana Bano vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2014(8) ADJ 690 (DB), Praveen
Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others and
2015(8)ADJ 275 (DB), Rajesh Kumar
Gond vs. State of U.P. and others.

6.

Learned
Standing
Counsel,
however, in opposition to the writ petition
has submitted that the Tehsildar was the
issuing authority of the Caste Certificate
and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the
decision arrived at by the Tehsildar then he
should have filed an Appeal under the
provisions of Uttar Pradesh Public Interest
Guarantee Act, 2011 before the SubDivisional Magistrate.
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri H.R. Misra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri K.M.
Misra and Sri Swatantra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Standing Counsel, the Court is
definitely of the view that when the
Tehsildar had already earlier issued a
certificate and was only issuing a fresh
certificate "On-line" then he could not
enter into the merits of the matter. The
jurisdiction to verify the Caste Certificate
and as to whether it should be validated
or in-validated lay with the Caste
Scrutiny
Committee
under
the
Government Order dated 28.02.2011. The
authority i.e. the Tehsildar, which had
earlier issued the Caste Certificate had no
jurisdiction to cancel the same except
when the Caste Certificate had been
obtained
by
playing
fraud
or
by
concealing any relevant fact. In the
instant case when the Tehsildar had
cancelled the Caste Certificate issued by
him on 27.11.2014, there was no finding
in the impugned order that the earlier
certificate was obtained by the petitioner
by playing fraud on any authority. As a
result,
the
impugned
order
dated
26.02.2021, so far as its relates to the
petitioner is quashed and is set aside.

8. With these observations the writ
petition stands allowed.

9. The Tehsildar shall issue the
"Online" Certificate forthwith. If, however,
the Tehsildar doubts the caste or the tribe of
the petitioner he may refer the matter to the
District Level Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Maharajganj.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 164
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1003201 of 2011

Ramesh Chandra Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
Collector Barabanki & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Adnan Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Instrument
Not
Duly
Stamped
-
Limitation, S. 33 (5) Proviso - as per
proviso to Section 33 (5) of the Act, no
action under sub section (4) or sub section
(5) can be taken by the authorities after a
period of four years from the date of
execution of the instrument - only saving
in the second proviso to section 33(5)
(Para 8)

B. Civil Law - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
Lease executed on 26.09.2002 - notice
dated 01.01.2010 issued in terms of S. 47A r/w Ss 33/40 of Indian Stamp Act -
objections taken by petitioner pertaining
to limitation - objections pertaining to
limitation rejected primarily on the ground
that the document in question being a
lease under Section 2(16) would amount
to an instrument as defined under Section
2(14) of the Act and would therefore be
chargeable to duty in terms of section
2(6) and section 3 of the Act particularly
since instrument was executed in India in
terms of section 17 of the Act - Held -
notice has been issued after a period of
ten years from the date of execution of
instrument of transfer and would be
barred
under
aforesaid
provisions
-
opposite parties have not taken any such
ground that any prior permission from the
State Government has been taken before