R SANJAI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions, is one and the same, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) As the facts are almost similar, it is enough to discuss the facts in W.P.No.7979 of 2019, as follows:

(3.) The second respondent in W.P.No.7979 of 2019 has filed counter affidavit, inter-alia stating that it is usual and mandatory procedure to mention the Office Register Number in the Community Certificate, but the Community Certificate of the petitioner's father does not contain any Register Number. So, the genuineness of the Community Certificate was highly doubtful and that could not be the base factor to issue Hindu Konda Reddis Community Certificate to the petitioner. Further, in the Census 1961, the population returned in the State of Madras for the Konda Reddi Tribe was 8 and of this, 3 were working as Labourer in Madras (Chennai) City, while the rest were spread over two other Districts. The Government of Tamil Nadu had also noticed that there was a sudden spurt in the families of Konda Reddis between the Census of 1961 and 1971. All the documents submitted by the petitioner, were verified, besides this, local enquiry was also conducted and that the second respondent came to a conclusion that the petitioner and his family members do not belong to Konda Reddy Community, but they belong to Hindu Reddiar Community, which reveals from the School Records, Birth Register and Service Records of the petitioner's parents and their relatives. 13 Community Certificates were issued as per Court direction, out of which, five were sent to the State Level Scrutiny Committee for verifying the genuineness. The School Records of the petitioner's father shows that he belongs to Hindu Reddiyar. It is true to say that the petitioner and his family members belong to Hindu Reddy Community, which is classified as Forward Community. The close relatives of the petitioner belong to Hindu Reddiar. Further, there is a provision of appeal as against the order of the first respondent, as per G.O.(Ms).No.147, Revenue RA.3(2) Department, dated 17.03.2016. The petitioner had not filed appeal. Hence, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of W.P.No.7979 of 2019.