DHANESHWAR KARMALI Vs. COMMISSIONER, NORTH CHOTANAGPUR DIVISION, HAZARIBAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.1910 of 2003, by which the writ petition was dismissed and consequently the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh was upheld.

(2.) THE Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh had been pleased to set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, who had been pleased to hold that the appellant is a member of the Schedule Tribe community, since the appellant ancestor's name in the Record of Rights is indicated as 'Lohar' and not as 'Karmali'. The Commissioner, therefore, was pleased to hold that the appellant belongs to the community of Lohar, who, at best, can claim the benefit of OBC and cannot claim the benefit of a Schedule Tribe as his caste in the Record of Rights is not recorded as 'Karmali' but as 'Lohar1.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the entries in the Record of Rights in regard to the appellant's ancestors were recorded differently, - meaning thereby that in regard to the ancestors of two brothers of the appellant, the caste was recorded as 'Karmali', whereas the caste of other brother of the appellant ancestor was recorded as 'Lohar' and, therefore, the appellant could not have been deprived of the benefit of caste of Karmali by treating him as Lohar, rather the appellant should have been treated in the category of 'Karmali', so as to grant him the benefit of restoration of the land on account of the fact that he belongs to the class of Scheduled Tribe.