LAWS(PAT)-1987-7-4

CHANDRA MOHAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On July 08, 1987
Chandra Mohan Mahto Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners challenge the orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 passed by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively whereby and whereunder the said authorities directed that the lands in question be restored by the petitioners in favour of respondent No. 5, in exercise of their powers conferred upon them under Section 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The only point which has been raised by Mr. J. P. Rajgarhia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, is that the respondent No. 2 had absolutely no jurisdiction to take any evidence for the purpose of finding out as to whether the respondent No. 5 was in fact Lohra by caste and not Lohar.

(2.) It is admitted at the bar that 'Lohars' are members of the backward classes whereas the 'Lohras' are the members of the Scheduled Tribe. The question as to whether a person would become a member of Scheduled Tribe or not is necessarily a question of fact. In this case, the said question has been decided on the basis of evidence adduced by both the parties. The respondent No. 2 while passing the order as contained in Annexure 4 has taken into consideration all the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 5 was in fact a member of the Scheduled Tribe being Lohra by caste and not Lohar, as mentioned in the deed of transfer impugned before him, Mr. Rajgarhia in support of his aforementioned submission placed strong reliance upon a decision of Supreme Court in Parasram and Ors. v. Shivchand and Ors. . In that decision it has been held that in the absence of a public notification issued by the President, a person properly described as Mochi in Punjab does not fall within the caste of Chamars as included in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Orders, 1950 and Constitution (Scheduled Castes) (Union Territories) Order, 1951 (as amended in 1966).

(3.) From a perusal of the aforementioned judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it appears that the question arose out of an Election Petition.