Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.96 seconds)
Documents citing Revenue Officer & Ors vs Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors on 17 January, 1990

Paduthota Ramachandra And Others Etc. vs Union Of India And Another Etc. on 14 September, 1995

Relying on this decision it was contended that it is open for the original petitioners to establish by evidence that synonyms or equivalent recognised by the Government of Karnataka are realty species of generic term Kotegar or Metri, Reliance was placed also on two other decisions in Satish Chandra Choudhary v. State of Tripura, and the Revenue Officer v. Prafulla Kumar Rai, . In the first case the facts were that Laskars were treated in the State of Assam as Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently the State Government decided to treat the said community as not belonging to Scheduled Tribes and the action was challenged before the Court. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to continue to treat the community as Scheduled Tribes as the matter was pending before Parliamentary Committee and the decision was awaited. We are unable to appreciate as to how this decision will advance the case of the respondents. In the second case, the issue arose under Orissa Land Reforms Act which inter alia provided that a person belonging to Scheduled Tribes cannot make a valid transfer of lands in favour of a person not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, without prior permission in writing of the Revenue Officer. The issue arose as transfer was made by a member belonging to sub-caste Rajaka and which was not recognised as Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential Order. It was claimed that Rajaka is a literal synonym for the word Dhoba and therefore Rajaka is not different from the caste Dhoba which was included in the Presidential Order. The Supreme Court relying upon Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasa-kosh, which is a recognised authority, accepted the claim. The judgment of the Supreme Court did not examine the question as to whether it is open to recognise sub-caste not mentioned in the Presidential Order by holding that the sub-caste is synonym to the caste included in the Presidential Order.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

C. Arumughathan vs S. Muthusami Naidu And Ors. on 26 October, 1990

In this connection, the learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Revenue Officer and Ors. v. Prafulla Kumar Pati and Ors. (1990) 1 Judgments To-day 155, where their Lordships, while considering the scope of Sections 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, with regard to restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes, held : "The transfer made in favour of persons belonging to Brahmin caste, without the prior permission of the Revenue Officer, by Scheduled caste persons in whose favour the assignment was made is void.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shri A. Chinnappa vs Shri V. Venkatamuni & Ors on 14 March, 1996

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Revenue Officer & Ors. v. Prafulla Kumar Pati & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 162]. In that case, admittedly Dhoba is one of the castes recognised by the President as Schedule Caste in relation to the State of Orissa. Since the appellant tharein claimed the status as a Rajaka in one of the sale deeds, it was sought to deny him the benefits conferred on Scheduled Castes. This Court had held that since the President has notified Dhoba to be Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Orissa, merely because he described himself to be a Rataka in one of the sale deeds, his status as a Scheduled Caste is not taken away by such description. The ratio therein has no applicatin to the facts in this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

V.D.S.R.Re.Rolling Mill vs The Special Commissioner And ... on 10 July, 2012

In this connection, the learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in The Revenue Officer and Ors. v. Prafulla Kumar Pati and Ors. (1990) 1 Judgments To-day 155, where their Lordships, while considering the scope of Sections 22 and 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960, with regard to restriction on alienation of land by Scheduled Tribes, held : "The transfer made in favour of persons belonging to Brahmin caste, without the prior permission of the Revenue Officer, by Scheduled caste persons in whose favour the assignment was made is void.
Madras High Court Cites 105 - Cited by 5 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Radhaballabh Choudhary vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 September, 1990

Reference may also be made to yet another recent decision of the Supreme Court Revenue Officer v. Prafulla Kumar Pati, AIR 1990 SC 727, on which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance. In that case, the question was whether the caste Rajaka in Orissa is the same as Dhoba, which has been mentioned as a Scheduled Caste in Orissa in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. During the course of the judgment (para 12-A), it was mentioned that Rajaka is the literal synonym for the word 'Dhoba' and according to the Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasakosh, which is a recognised authority, the definition of 'Dhoba' is Rajaka - washerman (emphasisis supplied). It was consequently held that although described as Rajaka, the respondents in that case actually belonged to Dhoba Caste. The Court, therefore, did not accept the statement that the caste Rajaka is different from the caste Dhoba.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krushna Chandra Bariki vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 19 September, 1991

In The Revenue Officer and Ors. v. Prafulla Kumar Pati and Ors. (AIR 1990 SC 727), question arose as to whether a person belonging to 'Rajak' community which community is not included in the list appended to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order,1950 can be declared as a Scheeuled Caste. Taking into consideration the meaning of 'Dhobak'" and other circumstances it has been held that ''Rajak" is synonym of caste "Dhoba" and according to Purna Chandra Oriya Bhasakosh which is a recognised authority, the definition of "Dhoba" is "Rajak washerman. As such, the submission that the caste 'Rajaka' is different from caste 'Dhoba' is not sustainable.
Orissa High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - B L Hansaria - Full Document
1