Everyone in the state of India has the right to live freely and they can buy and sell their property. In India, there are some rules that land of Schedule caste person can only register to the Schedule caste no other person can register the land on their name.
FACTS AND ISSUES OF THE CASE
The appellant assails the order of BDT which affirmed by the High court. The BDT declines to restore the Khata which is in the name of the appellant and the high court cancels the khata standing in the name of the appellant’s vendor earlier.
In the case of Lakshmamma vs BDT, the supreme court makes the appeal of the appellant valid in which his ‘khata’ of the land was declined. Earlier a writ petition filed in the high court of Karnataka Smt. Lakshmamma And Others v. The State Of Karnataka And Ors., but this writ was dismissed.
The schedule caste house building co-operative society limited which was the respondent no 2, was allotted 4 acres 23 guntas of land in Survey No.32 of Marenahalli for development of residential layout for its members. Bye law No.5(iii) restricted membership of the Society to Scheduled Caste persons only. The Society allotted and sold site no.10 to the appellant’s vendor on 24.12.1985. The appellant purchased the same on 29.8.2005 by a registered sale deed. The Secretary of society allotted and registered the land to persons who were not members of the society and they include a person to whom the appellant’s plot was resold.
The main issues, in this case, are as follows:-
- Whether the appellant belongs to the Schedule caste or not?
- Whether the order of the high court was unsustainable?
- Whether the order to the restoration of ‘khata’ in the name of the appellant or not?
The main contention of Appellants’ Counsel is that possession of the scheduled land has not been taken by the defendant authorities and that issuance of notification under sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not conclusive of taking over possession of the scheduled land, as appellant are in actual possession of the land in question.
The appellant then represented to the Authority for restoration of the “khata” in her name. The impugned order dated 15.11.2006 declined her request on the ground that she did not belong to the scheduled caste, and therefore, her membership had been cancelled.
The facts of the case, as noticed above, have not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Authority. If that be so, the allotments made by the Society to persons not belonging to scheduled caste stood saved by order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 02.01.1997 as affirmed by the High Court on 10.02.2006. It hardly needs further elucidation that the grounds mentioned in the impugned order are completely nonest. The order therefore stands vitiated by complete non-application of mind. The allotments by the then Secretary P. Venugopal having been held to be illegal and without authority, the order dated 17.09.2003 is also unsustainable, additionally in view of the withdrawal of his appeal by Vasanth Raj on 03.08.2006.
The order of the High Court is, therefore, held to be unsustainable, and is set aside. The Authority shall restore “Khata” in the name of the appellant.
The appeal is allowed.
The judgement was decided by the two-judge bench of the supreme court of India and the decision was in the favour of the Appellant and they allowed the appeal of the appellant and based on the facts that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled caste (Harijans) they said that the plot can not be allotted to another person and can not be registered in the name of other caste person.
Many constitutional provisions are there to provide a safeguard to the lower caste because they were exploited by the upper caste for many years and now also they are exploited and are like insects in this dominant society. So this act of not registering the property in the name of other caste people protect them because a dominant person can use his power to make the person transfer the property on his name either free or by a very small amount which is not according to the value of that land.
So in my view, the judgment which was given by the judges is relatively good in this case and the property can not be registered or allotted to the member of society by the co-registrar and the judgment of the high court was also held unsustainable and the fact which presented that he does not belong to SCs is also denied.
The khata was also restored which is also necessary because the land belongs to the appellant only.
The decision of the court in favour of the appellant after the arguments shows the capacity of the highest protector to protect the people from the exploitation by the dominant people who can dominate the lower people and this judgement can also help in many cases as there are many cases like this happens in every state of India.
The court also changed the decision of the high court which shows that there no authority or supreme power other than the Supreme Court and they are here to protect the rights of every people whose rights are exploited.
 Civil Appeal No. 4088 of 2010
 Writ Petition No. 39865 of 2014 (LA-BDA)
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at firstname.lastname@example.org