Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.69 seconds)
Ranchi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand on 22 February, 2024 cites

Nityanand Sharma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 February, 1996

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nityanand Sharma & Another vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra) has in no uncertain manner, observed that 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. The undisputed fact remains that in the concerned record, the caste of the vendor has been mentioned as 'Raj Bhuinyan'. In view of the settled principle of law, certainly the Circle Officer or the Additional Collector has no power to declare synonym 'Munda' as equivalent to 'Raj Bhuinyan' and conclude that 'Raj 5 W.P.(C) No.3154 of 2018 Bhuinyan' is a Scheduled Tribe specified in Presidential Order. Further, since the Additional Collector was exercising the power under Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 wherein he has rightly observed that the Mutation authorities are not supposed to deal with the complicated question of right, title and interest of one or other and no ground has been assigned by the revision petitioner which could render the order impugned before the Additional Collector, Ranchi to be unfit or unsustainable and went to dismiss the revision, certainly he has committed a perversity by going beyond the scope of Section 16 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 by directing that the Circle Officer may opt appropriate legal remedy under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 92 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1