Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOS.     6741-6742     OF     2012   [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 33006-33007 of 2010]

State of Rajasthan & Others .. Appellants

Versus

Aanjaney Organic Herbal Pvt. Ltd. .. Respondents

WITH

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     6743     OF     2012   [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14771 of 2011]

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

K.     S.     RADHAKRISHNAN,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in this case, called upon to decide the question as to  

whether the transfer of land from a member of Scheduled Caste to a  

juristic person, other than Scheduled Caste, is void, in view of the  

provisions of Section 42(b) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for  

short ‘the Act’).

Page 2

2

3. The High Court of Rajasthan has answered the above question in  

several cases holding that such a transfer would not be hit by the  

above mentioned provision, since the expression ‘person’  would not  

take in a ‘juristic person’ and that juristic person does not have a caste  

and, therefore, any transfer made by a Scheduled Caste person would  

not be hit by Section 42(b) of the Act.      

4. In the impugned judgment, reliance has been placed on an  

earlier judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in State of  

Rajasthan v. Indian Oil Corporation 2004 (5) WLC (Raj.) 703,  

which held as follows:

“6. It goes without saying that though the Indian Oil  Corporation is a juristic person but it does not have a caste.  Thus the sale in favour of Indian Oil Corporation by a  member of Scheduled Caste is not covered by the  provisions of section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.  Thus taking into totality of the facts and circumstances, we  feel that it is not a fit case where the delay of 480 days  should be condoned.  The special leave is rejected.”

5. The judgment in IOC (supra) was challenged before this Court by  

the State of Rajasthan in C.C. No. 19386 of 2010 with an application  

for condonation of delay of 2798 days.  This Court dismissed the

Page 3

3

petition with costs vide order dated 4.1.2011, since the delay was not  

properly explained.  

6. We are informed that since the special leave petition, arising out  

of CC No. 19386 of 2010, was dismissed, the judgment in IOC (supra)  

is treated as law so far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned and  

being followed in various other similar cases. It is, therefore,  

necessary to examine the various legal issues raised before us so as to  

render an authoritative pronouncement on the question posed before  

us.  

7. The respondent is a private limited company registered under the  

Indian Companies Act vide Registration Certificate of Incorporation  

dated 17.8.2005.  The Company purchased 25 bighas of land in  

Khasra No. 840/651 situated in Village Jetasan Patwar area Jetasan  

Tehsil, Rajasthan, out of which 9.73 bighas belonged to the members  

of Scheduled Caste.  That property was purchased on 26.9.2005 by a  

registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-.   An  

application was preferred by the respondent before the Revenue  

Authorities for mutation of the property.  The same was refused  

placing reliance on a circular dated 19.11.2005, which stated that

Page 4

4

mutation could be effected only if the transfer was between the  

members of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, as the case may be.  

Since the application for mutation was refused, the respondent herein  

filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 169/2006, which was allowed by a  

learned single Judge.  Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred an  

appeal before the Division Bench, being D.B. Civil Writ Special Appeal  

(Writ) No. DR (J) 1177/2008, which was also dismissed following the  

judgment in IOC (supra).

8. Heard learned counsel on either side.  The Act is a beneficial  

legislation which takes special care to protect the interest of the  

members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe.  Section 42 provides  

some general restrictions on sale, gift and bequest of the interest of  

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, in the whole or part of their  

holding.  The reason for such general restrictions is not only to  

safeguard the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste and  

Scheduled Tribe, but also to see that they are not being exploited by  

the members of non-Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe.  The  

relevant provisions of Section 42(b) are extracted below for easy  

reference:

Page 5

5

“42.  General restrictions on sale, gift & bequest – The  sale, gift or bequest by a Khatedar tenant of his  interest in the whole or part of his holding shall be void  if (a) xxxxxxx deleted (b) Such sale, gift or bequest is by a member of a  

Scheduled Caste in favour of a person who is not  a member of the Scheduled Caste, or by a  member of a Scheduled Tribe in favour of a  person who is not a member of the Scheduled  Tribe.”

9. Shri P.P. Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the  

respondent, submitted that the expression ‘person’, as such, is not  

defined in the Act and, therefore, we have to go by the definition of  

‘person’  under the General Clauses Act, 1987.  The General Clauses  

Act defines the expression ‘person’ as follows:

“3(42). ‘Person’  shall include any company or  association of body or individuals, whether  incorporated or not.”

10. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that, if it is so read  

along with Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, the expression  

‘person’ used in clause (b) of Section 42 of the Act takes in a juristic  

person as well and, therefore, if a member of Scheduled Caste sells his  

property to a juristic person, the sale cannot be declared as void, since  

a juristic person has no caste.

Page 6

6

11. Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Additional Advocate General  

appearing for the State of Rajasthan, on the other hand, contended  

that we cannot read Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act into  

Section 42(b) of the Act, out of context.  Learned counsel submitted  

that the expression ‘person’  used in Section 42(b) of the Act is a  

natural person and not a juristic person and if the transfer is by a  

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who is not  

a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, then such a transfer  

is void under Section 42 of the Act.

12. Article 341 of the Constitution empowers the President by public  

notification to specify the castes, races or tribes which shall, for the  

purpose of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in  

relation to that State or Union Territory etc.  Article 341 of the  

Constitution reads as follows:

“341. Scheduled Castes.- (1) The President may  with respect to any State or Union Territory, and  where it is a State after consultation with the  Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the  castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within  castes, races or tribes which shall for the purposes of  this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in  relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case  may be.

Page 7

7

(2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from  the list of Scheduled Castes specified in a notification  issued under clause (1) any caste, race or tribe or part  of or group within any caste, race or tribe, but save as  aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause  shall not be varied by any subsequent notification.”

13. Article 342 of the Constitution deals with ‘Scheduled Tribes’ and  

reads as follows:

“342. Scheduled Tribes. – (1) The President may with  respect to any State or Union territory, and where it is  a State, after consultation with the Governor thereof,  by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal  communities or parts of or groups within tribes or  tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this  Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in  relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case  may be. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from  the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification  issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community  or part of or group within any tribe or tribal  community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued  under the said clause shall not be varied by any  subsequent notification.”

14. The expressions ‘Scheduled Castes’  and “Scheduled Tribes’, we  

find in Section 42(b) of the Act have to be read along with the  

constitutional provisions and, if so read, the expression ‘who is not a  

member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe’  would mean a

Page 8

8

person other than those who has been included in the public  

notification as per Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.  The  

expression ‘person’ used in Section 42(b) of the Act therefore can only  

be a natural person and not a juristic person, otherwise, the entire  

purpose of that section will be defeated.  If the contention of the  

company is accepted, it can purchase land from Scheduled Caste /  

Scheduled Tribe and then sell it to a non-Scheduled Caste and  

Schedule Tribe, a situation the legislature wanted to avoid.  A thing  

which cannot be done directly can be not done indirectly over-reaching  

the statutory restriction.   

15. We are, therefore, of the view that the reasoning of the High  

Court that the respondent being a juristic person, the sale effected by  

a member of Scheduled Caste to a juristic person, which does not have  

a caste, is not hit by Section 42 of the Act, is untenable and gives a  

wrong interpretation to the above mentioned provision.

16. We are also of the view that the Revenue Authorities rightly  

refused the mutation as per circular dated 9.11.2005.  Condition No.  

7(2) of the circular was rightly invoked by the Revenue Authorities in

Page 9

9

denying mutation, which condition is extracted below for easy  

reference:

“7(2). If the khatedar of Scheduled Caste /  Scheduled Tribe executes sale to such a person of  Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe who is office- bearer of any firm/society/company/legal institution,  then the mutation on the basis of registration shall be  made only in the name of that particular  person/vendee who is a member of Scheduled  Caste/Scheduled Tribe and not in the name of that  firm/society/company/legal institution wherein he is  office-bearer or member.”

17. The above mentioned condition makes it amply clear that the  

mutation on the basis of registration shall be made only in the name of  

that particular person/vendee who is a member of Scheduled  

Caste/Scheduled Tribe and not in the name of any  

firm/society/company/legal institution wherein a person is office-

bearer or member.  When we apply the above principles to the  

transfer of land in question, we have no hesitation to hold that the sale  

deed effected on 26.9.2005 was void and therefore rightly denied  

mutation in Revenue records.  Property, therefore purchased by the  

respondent from the members of Scheduled Caste vide sale deed  

dated 26.9.2005 and other sale deeds, therefore are void since hit by  

Section 42(b) of the Act and it is so declared.  The State can,

Page 10

10

therefore, re-possess the lands and return the lands to the original  

owners who are members of Scheduled Caste.

18. We may hasten to add, at times, Section 42(b) may go against  

the interest of the members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe as  

well.  There may be several situations where they intend to sell the  

property for purposes like marriage of son/daughter or to purchase a  

better property and so on, but in that event sometimes they may not  

get a better competitive price, if the sale is made only among the  

members of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe.   We have come  

across legislations where provisions are made enabling them to sell  

their lands to the members of non-Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe,  

on getting permission from the prescribed authority.  Such a provision  

may be sometimes helpful to the members of Scheduled Caste /  

Scheduled Tribe to get a better price for their land but it is for the  

legislature to incorporate appropriate provision in the Rajasthan Act.

19. Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the judgments of the

learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court are set  

aside.  However, there will be no order as to costs.   

Page 11

11

……………………………….J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

..………………………………J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, September 20, 2012