Telangana High Court
Chouhan Devanand vs The State Of Telangana on 29 October, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 16607 OF 2025
O R D E R:
Petitioners question the Proceedings dated 28-05-2025 of the 3rd respondent cancelling the caste
certificates issued by the 5th respondent in their favour, which were renewed from time to time. Consequently, a direction is sought to set aside the same.
2. On behalf of petitioners, the 1st petitioner stated that his grandfather, late Chouhan Ganapathi, belonged to ST Lambada community and was married to Subhadra of the same community. Their sons were Chouhan Kishan and Chouhan Sripathi. The 1st petitioner's father, Chouhan Kishan, belonged to ST Lambada community and resided at Dignur Village, Bazarhathnoor Mandal, Adilabad District. He married Jadhav Harnabai, daughter of late Jadhav Dagudu of Harkapur Village, Indervelly Mandal, also of the ST Lambada community. The said couple had seven children -- Chouhan Devanand, Chouhan Shyamanand, Chouhan Jamunabai, Chouhan Sadanand, Chouhan Gajananand, Chouhan Namachand, and Chouhan Vijay.
22.1. The 1st petitioner resides at Itchoda Village and Mandal, Adilabad District and has two wives: (1) Jadhav Godavari, daughter of Jadhav Sampathi of Mediguda Village, belonging to the ST Lambada community, with whom he has five children including petitioners 2, 3 and 7, and (2) Pawar Saya Bai, daughter of Pawar Narayana of Sathnala Village, Jainath Mandal, also belonging to the ST Lambada community, with whom he has three children -- petitioners 4, 5, and 6. 2.2. It is stated, the 1st petitioner's maternal grandfather, Jadhav Dagudu, belonged to ST Lambada community of Harkapur Village, Indervelly Mandal. His maternal uncle, Jadhav Hari Chand of the same community, married Ranibai of Sambajiguda, Jainur, Adilabad District, and their son, Jadhav Prakash, resides in Mumbai, being a native of Sambajiguda, Jainur, Asifabad District.
2.3. While so, it is stated, the 1st petitioner contested the Local Body Elections for MPTC, elected from Itchoda Mandal, and served as Vice-MPP from 2013 to 2018 in a seat reserved for ST. The 2nd petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Itchoda Gram Panchayat for 2007-2012, and the 4th petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the same Panchayat for the periods 2013-2018 and 2019-2024 in a seat reserved for ST. It is 3 asserted that all the petitioners are cultivating their agricultural lands situated at Itchoda Village and earning their livelihood while rendering public service as Sarpanch and MPTC without any interruption or allegations from any corner. 2.4. Whenever the 1st petitioner approached the All India Banjara Seva Sangh, Adilabad District for issuance of a community certificate for obtaining caste certificates from the Tahsildar, the organization issued such certificates recognizing him and his family as belonging to ST Lambada community. While so, in 2007, one Sri Kotnak Sathpath Rao, President of District Raj Gond Seva Samithi, Adilabad District, made a complaint dated 10-04-2007 before the official respondents requesting cancellation of caste certificate of the 2nd petitioner. Upon consideration of the records, the 5th respondent submitted a report to the 4th respondent stating that the complaint lodged by Sri Sathpath Rao was untenable. This clearly indicates that the said complaint was politically-motivated and lodged out of grudge. Subsequently, the 6th respondent, who is the President of All India Banjara Seva Sangh, Adilabad District made another complaint alleging that they obtained false caste certificates and availed benefits of MPTC and Sarpanch positions at Itchoda. Based on this complaint, notices were issued to the 1st 4 petitioner, who submitted explanation before the respondents. Without considering the same properly, respondents issued impugned Proceedings dated 28-05-2025, allowing the complaint of the 6th respondent and cancelling the caste certificates issued in favour of petitioners without any proper reason.
2.5. The 1st petitioner also states that in the impugned proceedings, the respondents wrongly stated that his family migrated in 1956, though he never mentioned any such specific year. This finding is baseless and indicates that the 3rd respondent acted at the instance of the 6th respondent, who wields political influence and intends to contest the Sarpanch election of the Gram Panchayat by eliminating Petitioners 1 and 2, for his personal gain. Hence, the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 28-05-2025 by the 3rd respondent is neither sustainable nor tenable in law.
2.6. According to the 1st petitioner, himself and his family, including his ancestors, have been recognized as members of the ST Lambada community for over 70 years since the formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh and after the Constitution came into force. The present action of cancelling their caste certificates after such a long lapse of time, without 5 proper reasons, is arbitrary. Moreover, no notices were issued to petitioners 2 to 7, who are majors and entitled to a hearing. Cancellation without providing them an opportunity to defend is violation of the principles of natural justice and constitutional mandates and no valid grounds existed for cancellation of caste certificates. It was the duty of the 3rd respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing to petitioners 2 to 7 as per Rule 9 of the Telangana (SC, ST & BC) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 which prescribes that when a fraudulent complaint is filed, the authorities are bound to issue notice and call for explanation from the affected persons. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside on this ground as well.
2.7. Finally, the 1st petitioner submits that himself and petitioners 2 and 3 are intending to contest the forthcoming local body elections for Sarpanch and MPTC posts. The 6th respondent, with a mala fide intention and political motivation, made a false complaint in March to prevent them from contesting. By influencing the official respondents, the 6th respondent managed to secure the impugned Proceedings without any proper enquiry, thereby obstructing their right to contest elections. Cancellation of caste certificates through 6 these proceedings is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the principles of natural justice, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and the provisions of the A.P. (SC, STs & BCs) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate Act, 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder.
3. By order dated 20.06.2025, this Court granted interim suspension of impugned proceedings. While doing so, it was observed that prima facie, no notices were served to anyone of petitioners for cancellation of their caste certificates; it clearly shows that the 3rd erspdnent District Collector without following due procedure as contemplated under Rule 9 of the 1993 Act or without issuing any notice to the affected parties passed the impugned order.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent District Collector, Adilabad, it is stated that the 6th respondent lodged a complaint against petitioner No. 1 alleging that he had obtained a false Scheduled Tribe (Lambadi) caste certificate and had enjoyed benefits as MPTC in Ichoda Mandal, Adilabad District, while his two daughters had previously served as Sarpanchs in the same Mandal. It was further alleged that petitioner No. 1 was holding agricultural lands in the notified agency area and had obtained pattas without payment although 7 he belonged to Odda/Beldar BC-A caste category. On this basis, he requested legal action for cancellation of ST caste certificates and the corresponding agricultural land titles in the tribal area. 4.1. Consequent to this complaint, the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, instructed that immediate necessary action be taken by placing the matter before the District Level Scrutiny Committee (DLSC) as per the provisions of Act 16 of 1993 to verify and confirm the caste status of the individual concerned. The District Collector, Adilabad, ordered that the matter be placed before the DLSC and directed the 4th respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad and the 5th respondent - Tahsildar, Ichoda to conduct a local enquiry and submit a detailed report enabling this office to place the matter before the DLSC for further action. In compliance, the 5th respondent reported that the Mandal Girdavar conducted an enquiry, recorded statements of petitioner No. 1 and his brother Chouhan Bolanath S/o Kishan Rao and collected documents produced by petitioner No. 1 in support of his caste claim, which were forwarded for consideration.
4.2. The 5th respondent also verified office records and confirmed that the following caste certificates had earlier been 8 issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Ichoda, to petitioner's family members:
(i) Certificate No. A2/813/2004 dated 04-06-2004 issued to Kum. Chouhan Anitha;
(ii) Certificate No. A1/1974/2002 dated 28-09-2002 issued to Chouhan Govind Kumar S/o Devanand;
(iii) Certificate No. CGC077856465 dated 07-07-2013 issued to Chouhan Sunitha D/o Devanand; and
(iv) Certificate No. CGC06680158 dated 21-07-2012 issued to Chouhan Anil Kumar S/o Devanand.
4.3. On receipt of the 5th respondent's report, the Additional Collector (Revenue) and Chairman, DLSC, Adilabad, directed the Committee members to proceed to Ichoda Village on 05-03-2025 to conduct a social-status enquiry of petitioner No. 1 and submit a detailed report for further course of action. Vide letter No. C3/205/2017 dated 20-03-2025, petitioner No. 1 was directed to appear before the office on 24-03-2025 with documentary evidence supporting his ST-Lambadi claim. Petitioner No. 1, accompanied by his advocate and after filing vakalat, appeared on 24-03-2025, submitted certain documents, and sought one month's time to furnish further proof. However, he failed to produce additional documentary 9 evidence thereafter. The signatures on the served notice copy and on the representation dated 24-03-2025 were verified and found to tally, establishing that the notice had been duly served and that documents were filed only after receipt of the notice. Meanwhile, a team constituted by the Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute (TCR & TI), Office of the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, together with DLSC members and the Tahsildar, Ichoda, conducted a field enquiry and submitted their report. In a similar matter, the 2nd respondent had earlier issued clarification vide Rc No. 84/2018/TRI/TEEC dated 10-02-2018 stating that the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, effective from 26-01-1950, applied only to tribal communities ordinarily residing in the State concerned at that time, and that amendments such as Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 108 of 1976) would apply solely to Lambadis whose ancestors or descendants were residents in Telangana as on 26-01-1950. Those who migrated after 1950 could not claim benefit under the 1950 Order merely on account of later residence.
4.4. Considering this clarification, the enquiry reports of the TCR & TI team and the DLSC members, and the documents furnished by petitioner No. 1, the Committee concluded that 10 petitioner No. 1 and his family migrated from the State of Maharashtra in 1956 and had not produced any document evidencing ST-Lambadi status prior to 1950. Hence they failed to prove the claim of belonging to the ST-Lambadi community. Accordingly, the Committee held that the ST-Lambadi caste certificates issued to petitioner No. 1 and his family members were false and recommended their cancellation. In exercise of powers under Section 5(1) of the 1993 Act read with Rule 9(7) of the A.P. (SCs, STs and BCs) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate Rules, 1997, communicated through G.O.Ms.No. 58 SW (J) Dept., dated 12-05-1997 and adopted in Telangana via G.O.Ms.No. 5 Scheduled Castes Development (POA.A2) Department dated 08-08-2014, the recommendations of the DLSC were accepted. Consequently, by the impuigned proceedings, the false ST-Lambadi community certificates of petitioners 1 to 7 were cancelled and the individuals were declared as not belonging to ST-Lambadi community, in accordance with Act 16 of 1993 and the Rules framed thereunder.
4.5. Regarding the earlier complaint against petitioner No. 2, it is stated, upon examining the representation of Sri Sathpath Rao, President, District Raj Gond Seva Samithi, 11 Adilabad, the 4th respondent was directed to investigate and report and he referred the matter to the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Utnoor, who was instructed through letter No. B7 & C3/1230/2007 from the third respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry and report. The said enquiry remains pending before the District Tribal Welfare Officer, Utnoor, and the case has not been finalized to date. It is stated, under Section 8(1) of the 1993 Act, the Government has revisionary power to call for and examine records of any decision or order passed by subordinate authorities to satisfy itself as to legality, regularity or propriety, and to modify, annul, reverse, or remit such orders. Further, as per G.O.Ms.No. 79 dated 24-07-2002, amending Rule 9 of the A.P. (SCs, STs and BCs) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997, sub-rule (10) was inserted, empowering the Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, either suo motu or upon complaint or request, to enquire into the correctness of any community certificate already issued and, if found fraudulent, to refer the case to the Collector concerned or Government for cancellation under Section 5 of the Act. 4.6. As notices had not been served upon petitioners 2 to 7, the District Authority has since opined that they should be given a fair opportunity to substantiate their claims; the matter 12 would be placed before the DLSC, Adilabad, for verification and enquiry regarding their social status. It is stated that suppressing the above facts, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition and this Court granted interim suspension of the said order. It is clarified that notice had, in fact, been served upon petitioner No. 1 vide letter dated 20-03-2025 directing appearance on 24-03-2025. Petitioner No. 1 appeared with his advocate and son, submitted documents, and his signature was verified against the served copy and representation. Thus, due procedure was followed prior to cancellation of his caste certificate. In view of these facts and reasons, it is prayed that interim order be vacated.
5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 6th respondent, it is stated, Respondent No. 3, following a thorough enquiry, submitted the enquiry report prepared by Respondents 4 and 5. Additionally, a team constituted by the Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institution (TCR & TI), Office of Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, Hyderabad, along with DLSC Committee members and the Tahsildar, Ichoda, conducted ground-level verification and submitted their report. Based on 13 this enquiry, the District Collector rightly passed the order cancelling the caste certificates of petitioners. 5.1. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 originally belonged to Beldar caste but suppressed this fact to obtain the Scheduled Tribe (Lambada) certificate and enjoyed benefits as a Lambada tribal, a status managed and recognized by local authorities from time to time. Petitioners have never been subjected to arbitrary or unlawful action violating principles of natural justice or the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST, BC) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993, and the rules made thereunder. It is further stated that Sri Ade Manaji, S/o Sakru filed RTI Petition before the Public Information Officer, Office of the DEO, Adilabad, on 24-03-2025 seeking information about petitioner No. 1. The DEO office furnished the transfer certificate, admission register, and student list along with caste details. The records clearly revealed, under Serial No. 1174 that petitioner No. 1, Chavan Devanand, S/o Kishan, belonged to Hindu Labour Marati Beldar caste, information provided by his parents at the time of his admission to ZPHS Indervelly in the 3rd class during 1973. Copies of the RTI report were submitted along with the counter- affidavit for the Hon'ble Court.
145.2. It is also stated specifically, the 1st petitioner's wife, Chowhan Godavari, does not belong to Lambada/Banjara ST community, and no documentary proof was submitted in this regard. Similarly, Jadhav Harmabai, who married the petitioner's father, also did not belong to Lambada/Banjara ST community and resided at Harkapur Village, Indervelly Mandal. The All India Banjara Seva Sangh (AIBSS) submitted a requisition to the Gram Nayak of Harkapur (V), Indervelly (M), on 06-07-2025, and subsequently, on 10-07-2025, the Gram Nayak, Chauhan Umaji Nayak, along with the Gram Committee, passed a resolution stating that the 1st petitioner's father, grandfather (Jadhav Dagudu), and uncle (Harichand) were residents of Harkapur but did not belong to ST Lambada community.
5.3. It is acknowledged that the 1st petitioner had two wives, Jadhav Godavari and Pawar Sayabai, and children from each wedlock. It is categorically denied that the wives or their fathers belonged to the ST Lambada community. AIBSS members, Jadhav Ramesh (President) and Rathod Praveen (Secretary) of the Echoda Branch, Adilabad District, conducted an enquiry and submitted requisitions to Gram Patel Madavi Bheemrao, Mediguda (V), Echoda (M), and Gram Patel Pendoor 15 Balu, Kanapa Mediguda, Sathnala (V), Jainath (M), on 05-07- 2025. On 12-07-2025, the respective Gram Committees passed resolutions stating that Jadhav Godavari and her father, Sampath, as well as Pawar Sayabai and her father, Narayana, were residents of their respective villages but did not belong to ST Lambada. It was further noted that petitioner Chavan Anil Kumar S/o Chavan Devanand (petitioners 1, 6, 7) submitted an undated DruvikaranaPataramu claiming that AIBSS recognized them as Lambada. The President and Secretary of AIBSS verified and found that the petitioners had fabricated the document, forged the signatures of the AIBSS office-bearers, and a criminal complaint was filed against petitioners 6 and 7. 5.4. It is also stated, petitioners 1, 2 and 4 participated in local elections and held posts based on ST caste certificates; however, these certificates are false. The conduct of petitioners, by suppressing their true caste status (Odd/BC-A/Beldar), deprived genuine tribal candidates of opportunities and benefits. Petitioners fabricated AIBSS letterheads with false content and forged signatures to obtain ST Lambada certificates. Raj Gond Seva Samithi President, Kotnak Sampath Rao submitted a complaint against petitioner No. 1 for being Odd/BC-A (Serial No. 37). The matter remains pending with 16 Respondent No. 3 and District Tribal Welfare, ITDA, Utnoor, Adilabad. Any allegation of inaction by Respondents is ascribed to administrative reasons unknown to the sixth respondent. 5.5. The caste of petitioners was verified by AIBSS complaints, and after proper enquiry by Respondents 4 and 5 and DLSC, Respondent No. 1 correctly cancelled the caste certificates vide Proceedings dated 28-05-2025. During the lifetime of petitioners' ancestors, the issue of Lambada/ST caste did not arise. Petitioner No. 1 created false ST Lambada certificates to gain political advantage in Echoda (M), a ST-reserved area for Sarpanch/MPTC elections. Respondents issued notices and provided an opportunity to respond before cancelling the certificates, upholding principles of natural justice.
5.6. Section 8(1) of the Telangana (SC, ST, & BC Regulation of Issue of Community Certificate) Act, 1993 empowers the Government to call for and examine records, modify, annul, reverse or remit decisions by subordinate authorities to ensure legality, regularity, or propriety. The complaint filed by Respondent No. 6 on behalf of genuine ST community members prompted Respondents 3, 4 and DLSC to conduct enquiry and submit a fair report to Respondent No. 1. 17 Cancellation of caste certificates was conducted in accordance with evidence and proper procedure. petitioners' claim that Respondent No. 6 is not local to the area is false. Notices were properly delivered to the 1st petitioner, authorized to depose on behalf of Petitioners 1 to 7. Respondent No. 6, as an original member of Lambada/Banjara community, submitted a complaint against non-Lambada petitioners, and Respondent No. 1 verified and upheld the complaint's findings.
6. Heard Sri Koppula Gopal, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Yugandhar Gatla, learned counsel for the 6th respondent. In support of their case, learned counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 8894 of 2008 and the High Court of composite State of Andhra Pradesh in M. Karunakar v. State of A.P. 1.
7. Upon careful consideration of the enquiry reports, documentary evidence and statutory provisions, the DLSC concluded that the 1st petitioner and family members migrated from Maharashtra in 1956 and did not produce evidence of ST- Lambadi status prior to 1950. The Committee thus determined 1 2001(2) ALD 18 18 that caste certificates issued to petitioners 1 to 7 were false. Exercising powers under Section 5(1) of Act 16 of 1993 read with Rule 9(7) of the Rules, 1997, as adopted in Telangana via G.O.Ms.No. 5, Scheduled Castes Development (POA.A2) Department dated 08-08-2014, the District Collector cancelled the caste certificates vide impugned proceedings.
8. Further, the 6th respondent, in the counter-affidavit, provided evidence through RTI records that the 1st petitioner, Chouhan Devanand, S/o Kishan was recorded as belonging to the Hindu Labour Marathi Beldar caste at the time of admission to ZPHS Indervelly in 1973. Gram Committee resolutions dated 10-07-2025 and 12-07-2025 confirm that neither the 1st petitioner's wives nor their fathers belonged to ST Lambada community. Affidavits from AIBSS Echoda verified that petitioners had fabricated letters on AIBSS letterhead and forged signatures to obtain ST-Lambadi certificates. Criminal complaints were filed against petitioners 6 and 7 for the same. From the above, it is clear that procedural requirements under Section 8(1) of Act 16 of 1993, empowering the Government to examine and revise records of any subordinate authority to ensure legality, regularity, and propriety, were fully complied with. Notices were served to petitioner No. 1, who appeared and 19 submitted explanations. Field enquiries and scrutiny by TCR & TI and DLSC ensured a fair verification process. Petitioners 2 to 7, although not individually served initially, are to be provided opportunity to substantiate their claims before DLSC, in accordance with due procedure.
9. Considering all the pleadings, it is evident that petitioners' claim of belonging to ST Lambada community relies primarily on ancestral assertions, previously issued certificates, and purported letters from AIBSS, which have been established as fabricated. The petitioners' allegations of mala fide action, political interference, and violation of natural justice are unsubstantiated. Respondents adhered to statutory provisions, verified historical, educational, and field records, and acted on complaints filed by the 6th respondent to ensure equitable protection of rights of bona fide tribal members.
10. In conclusion, it is to be held that the impugned proceedings were issued after due enquiry, verification of documentary evidence and field-level social status investigation in compliance with Act 16 of 1993, Rules of 1997, applicable G.O.Ms.Nos. 58 SW(J) Dept., dated 12-05-1997 and G.O.Ms.No. 5, Scheduled Castes Development (POA.A2) Department, dated 08-08-2014. Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any legal or 20 factual infirmity, arbitrariness or violation of principles of natural justice. The Court is satisfied that cancellation of caste certificates is justified, lawful, and consistent with statutory and constitutional provisions.
11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The DLSC, Adilabad, may proceed in accordance with law to verify the social status of petitioners 2 to 7 ensuring due compliance with procedural safeguards. No costs.
12. The interim order dated 20.06.2025 shall automatically stand vacated.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 29th October 2025 ksld