Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. Exs.R.21 to R.23 documents, dated 15-12-2006, 27-02-2007 and 28-04-2009, of course, specifically described the executants, namely, the mother and sister of the 1st respondent as belonging to 'Konda Dora' caste. But patently, these recent documents resort to such description years later to the members of the family started claiming and enjoying the consequential privileges and benefits in educational, electoral and other aspects arising out of such status.

33. Then come the attested copies of the Census Index and Report from 1891 to 1951 marked as Exs.R.24 to R.33. While the contents of these old and authoritative documents can be straight away referred to, Ex.R.24 the Census of India, 1891 report published in 1893 referred to a tribe in Vizagapatnam called 'Konda Dora' or 'Konda Kapu' and 'Konda Doras', 'Konda Kapus', 'Kondas', Manne Doras' or 'Doras' were stated to have 74 sub-divisions entered into the Schedules in Chapter-IX of the report. But majority of them were stated to have returned to the main caste or one of its synonyms. Significantly, it was also stated that many of the sub-divisions are the names of separate castes, though Ex.R.25 Tables and Caste Index of the same census gave the names of the main castes and underneath each caste, the names of the sub-divisions and it is true that under the caste 'Konda Dora', 'Konda Raju' was mentioned as one of the sub- divisions.

49. In Chinnappa v. Venkatamuni and others26, the caste, to which the returned candidate belongs, was not recognized as a Scheduled Caste in the Presidential notification and it was held to be not open to be considered to be synonymous with or equivalent to a caste notified in the Scheduled Castes Order. The limited scope of enquiry was held to be whether the caste claimed by the candidates finds place in the notification of the President as amended under the said Act.

50. Nityanand Sharma and another v. State of Bihar and others27 is a case where the question was whether Lohars could be considered by the Court as synonyms of Loharas or Lohras and it was held that it was not open to the Court to make any addition or subtraction from the Presidential Order and the Court has no power to declare synonyms as equivalent to the Tribes specified in the Order or include in or substitute any caste/tribe etc. Though evidence may be admissible to a limited extent of finding out whether the community which claims the status as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was, in fact, included in the Schedule concerned, the Court is devoid of power to include or exclude from or substitute or declare synonyms to be of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or parts thereof or group of such caste or tribe.