The Orissa High Court held that a person’s entitlement to benefits as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution is determined solely by the Presidential notification of the state where the person currently resides, not by the status held in the state of origin. Consequently, a migrant from Jharkhand belonging to the Bhuiya caste, notified as a Scheduled Caste there, cannot claim Scheduled Tribe benefits in Odisha where the same caste is notified as a tribe.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Binoy Krishna Das, a resident of Jharkhand residing in Baripada on rent, owned agricultural land measuring Ac.0.14 decimals (Khata No.182/52, Plot No.311/906, Mouza-Gangraj, Tahasil-Kuliana, District-Mayurbhanj, Odisha). He decided to sell the land to meet medical expenses and clear a hand loan. He entered into an agreement with Manas Ranjan Sethy, also a Scheduled Caste person, who paid Rs.10,00,000/- and took possession. A sale deed was executed on 17.03.2026 and presented for registration before the Tahasildar, Kuliana. The Sub-Registrar refused to accept the deed without passing any order.
Key Facts
- The petitioner belongs to the Bhuiya caste, which is notified as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand but included in the list of Scheduled Tribes in Odisha under the Presidential notification.
- The purchaser, Manas Ranjan Sethy, is also a Scheduled Caste person.
- The sale consideration amounted to Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs).
- The sale deed was prepared on 17.03.2026.
- The Sub-Registrar refused to register the deed on an unspecified date in March 2026, prompting the petitioner to seek remedy.
- On 24.03.2026, the petitioner filed a petition before the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M., Mayurbhanj, seeking direction to the Sub-Registrar to register the deed.
- By letter dated 23.04.2026, the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M. informed the petitioner that, as per Section 3(1) and Section 3(1)(iii) of Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956, the Bhuiya caste is treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, and therefore permission from the competent authority was required before the sale could be registered.
- The petitioner contended that his caste identity, being a birth-based characteristic, could not be altered by migration and that Regulation 2 of 1956 applies only to Scheduled Tribes, not to Scheduled Caste persons.
- The State counsel argued that, since the Bhuiya caste is notified as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, the petitioner must obtain a Scheduled Tribe certificate to avail the benefit of selling land, and that the registering authority was correct in insisting on such permission.
Procedural History
- 24.03.2026: Petition filed before the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M., Mayurbhanj (seeking direction to Sub-Registrar).
- 23.04.2026: Letter issued by the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M. requiring the petitioner to obtain permission under Regulation 2 of 1956 before resubmitting the sale deed.
- 16.10.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (W.P.(C) No.17774 of 2026).
Relief Sought
The petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction directing the Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahasildar, Kuliana to accept the sale deed for registration and to pass any other appropriate order as the Court deemed fit.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the petitioner, belonging to the Bhuiya caste notified as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand, could be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha merely because the same caste appears in the Scheduled Tribe list of that State, and consequently whether he was obliged to obtain permission under Section 3(1) and Section 3(1)(iii) of Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956 before selling his land. The Court also had to determine the inter-state operation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, i.e., whether a migrant carries his caste-based status from the State of origin to the State of residence for the purpose of availing constitutional benefits.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner contended that caste is an immutable, birth-based identity and that migration does not alter one’s caste. He relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130] and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 244] to argue that the benefits under Articles 341 and 342 are tied to the State-specific Presidential notification. Consequently, since the Bhuiya caste is notified only as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand, he could not claim Scheduled Tribe status in Odisha. He further submitted that Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956, which governs transfers of land by Scheduled Tribes, applies exclusively to persons notified as Scheduled Tribes in Odisha; as he is not so notified, the provision is inapplicable and the demand for permission under Section 3(1) and Section 3(1)(iii) of the Regulation is legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent/State
The State counsel maintained that, although the Bhuiya caste is a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand, the same caste appears in the Scheduled Tribe list of Odisha under the Presidential notification. Therefore, to avail the protection intended for Scheduled Tribes in Odisha, the petitioner must possess a Scheduled Tribe certificate issued by the competent authority of Odisha. Relying on the mandatory nature of Section 3(1) and Section 3(1)(iii) of Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956, the State argued that the Sub-Registrar was justified in refusing to register the sale deed until such permission was obtained. The State emphasized that the Presidential notification is State-specific, but the benefit of being treated as a Scheduled Tribe flows to any person who satisfies the tribal criterion in the concerned State, irrespective of his origin.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that the dispute turned on the inter-state operation of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. It observed that the Presidential notifications under these articles are expressly made “in relation to a State or Union Territory” (see Article 341(1) and Article 342(1)). Consequently, the specification of a caste or tribe as Scheduled is State-specific and does not travel with the individual.
The Court then extracted the ratio from Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College [(1990) 3 SCC 130], where the Supreme Court held that a person does not cease to belong to his caste by migration, but the constitutional benefits are available only in the State where the caste or tribe is notified. The Court further relied on Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SCs/STs v. Union of India [(1994) 5 SCC 244], which reiterated that the power of the President is limited to specifying castes or tribes “for the purposes of this Constitution … in relation to a State or a Union Territory”.
Applying this principle, the Court found that the Bhuiya caste, while notified as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand, is listed as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha. Since the petitioner had migrated from Jharkhand to Odisha, his status in Odisha is governed solely by the Odisha-specific notification. As the Bhuiya caste is not notified as a Scheduled Caste in Odisha, he cannot claim the benefits reserved for Scheduled Castes there. Likewise, because the caste is not notified as a Scheduled Tribe in his original State of Jharkhand, the mere fact that it is a tribe in Odisha does not automatically confer tribal status on a migrant from Jharkhand.
Turning to the statutory challenge, the Court noted that Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956 regulates transfers of land by Scheduled Tribes and is triggered only when the transferor is a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha. The provision therefore does not apply to a person who, though belonging to a tribe in another State, is not so notified in Odisha. The Court emphasized that the demand for permission under Section 3(1) and Section 3(1)(iii) of the Regulation was based on a mistaken premise that the petitioner’s caste-based identity could be carried across State borders.
The Court also observed that, since the petitioner is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act (which attracts only to SC/ST landholders) is likewise inapplicable. The impugned letter dated 23.04.2026, which directed the petitioner to obtain permission under Regulation 2, was therefore “bad in law” irrespective of the parties’ arguments.
In balancing the competing views, the Court endorsed the view that constitutional benefits must be read harmoniously with the State-specific language of Articles 341 and 342, rejecting the proposition that the words “for the purposes of this Constitution” could be made subservient to “in relation to that State”. It concluded that the only tenable construction is that a migrant’s entitlement flows from the notification of the State of residence.
"Thus, a person migrating to another State does not carry with him the status of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe that he enjoys in his original State."
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that a migrant’s caste status is governed by the Presidential notification of the State of residence, and that the Bhuiya caste, being a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand but a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha, does not confer tribal status on a person migrating from Jharkhand to Odisha. Consequently, the impugned letter dated 23.04.2026 of the District Registrar-cum-A.D.M., Mayurbhanj was quashed. The Sub-Registrar-cum-Tahasildar, Kuliana was directed to register the sale deed already presented by the petitioner within three days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Caste Status Is State-Specific
The judgment makes clear that the Presidential notifications under Articles 341 and 342 are State-specific. A person’s entitlement to reservation, protection or any other benefit flowing from his caste or tribe status is determined solely by the notification of the State where he presently resides. Consequently, a migrant cannot rely on the status enjoyed in his State of origin to claim benefits in the State of residence.
No Automatic Transfer of SC/ST Benefits Across States
Even if a caste is listed as a Scheduled Tribe in one State and as a Scheduled Caste in another, the mere fact of migration does not convert the individual's status. To avail benefits in the new State, the person must obtain a certificate reflecting his status as per that State’s notification. This applies to both educational concessions and land-related protections.
Impact on Land Transactions Involving SC/ST Land
State statutes that regulate transfers of land by Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes (e.g., Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956) attract only those persons who are notified as such in the concerned State. Practitioners must verify the migrant’s status under the destination State’s Presidential notification before advising on the applicability of such statutes. Failure to do so may render a transaction void or expose parties to unnecessary legal hurdles.
