Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.32 seconds)Anand vs Committee For S.&V. Of Tribe Claims &Ors on 8 November, 2011
"10. The present case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by
the coordinate bench referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the
matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims
and Others (supra). Even reliance on the affinity test cannot be a sole
criteria to reject the claim. The finding recorded by the Committee for
discarding the pre-constitutional record is perverse which is appearing on
page no.48 of the paper-book."
Mah.Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2023
13. It is further contended by learned AGP that in the light of
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of
Narwade/Yash
8 Civil WP-4770-2022.odt
Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2023 (16) SCC 415 as well as the
subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated
12.12.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 in the case of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and Ors., the Scrutiny Committee can take the affinity
test as one of the relevant factor for invalidation of tribe claim and
this exactly what has been done by the Scrutiny Committee while
invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe since, petitioner has failed to satisfy the affinity test.
Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya ... vs State Of Kerala (Bharucha, J.) on 3 December, 1993
17. Last but not the least, so far as the issue with regard to area
restriction is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Palghat Jilla
Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshna Samithi and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala
and Ors. reported in (1994)1 SCC 359 has held that, the area restriction
can not be a ground for invalidating the Caste or Tribe Claim. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 16 and 19 of the judgment observed
thus:-
Lahu Dashrath Thakur vs Schedules Tribe Certificate Scrutiny ... on 30 November, 2021
In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 (Shilpa
Vishnu Thakur's case"), the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has
noted that people having the surname "Thakur" belong to both forward
castes and various backward castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be
right in saying that in every case, only on the basis of the surname
Thakur, it cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the
applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in the Entry 44 of
the Maharashtra list. However, we must note that in the case of a person
having the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of entry
of the name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in the land
records, school or college records or any official records concerning the
applicant or his ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons having
the surname Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not
necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee should send the
case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on the nature of the documents
produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the probative value
of the documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding Thakur
Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny Committee in every
case should not mechanically refer the case to the Vigilance Cell for
conducting an enquiry including affinity test. The reference to the
Vigilance Cell can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied
with the material produced by the applicant."
Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 26 July, 2019
"9. .............................................................
In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the decision of the Division
Bench in the matter of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others, in Writ Petition No.11241/2012. The coordinate bench had
occasion to deal with the issue that if only Thakur is mentioned as caste in
pre-constitutional document, then what would be the consequences. We
reproduce paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6:
Smt. Alkadevi Gulabrao Thakur @ Kum. ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 11 September, 2018
16. This Court has recently taken a view in case of Abasaheb s/o
Gulabrao Thakur vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 7472
of 2021 decided on 25.02.2026 that, once it is found that, there are
oldest documents of pre-constitutional era, substantiating the tribe
claim of claimant belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, in that case
emphasizing on passing affinity test is unsustainable. This Court
therefore, has held that affinity test is not a litmus test while deciding
Caste or Tribe claim.
1