Cuttack: Orissa high court has held that a person cannot automatically claim Scheduled Caste (SC) or Scheduled Tribe (ST) status in a state based on the caste classification applicable in another state, while quashing a Mayurbhanj revenue authority’s decision to insist on prior permission for sale of land.The ruling came in a recent judgment in the case of Binoy Krishna Das, a resident of Jharkhand, who owns 0.14 acre of land at Gangraj village under Kuliana tehsil in Odisha’s Mayurbhanj district, where the property is recorded in his name. Das belongs to the Bhuiya caste, which is notified as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand.Das had sought HC’s intervention after the revenue authorities refused to accept and register a sale deed executed by him related to his land. In a letter issued on April 23, 2026, the district registrar-cum-additional district magistrate (ADM), Mayurbhanj, stated that Bhuiya was classified as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha and that he needed prior permission under Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956, which governs transfers of tribal land.Challenging the decision, Das argued that his caste could not be reclassified merely because he had moved from Jharkhand to Odisha and that the restrictions applicable to tribal land transfers did not apply to him.Accepting his challenge, the HC explained that presidential notifications listing SC and ST communities are state-specific and reflect the socio-economic conditions of communities in each state.“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,” Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed in the Oct 16 judgment, adding, “His status in the state to which he moves is governed solely by the presidential notification in relation to that state.”Justice Mishra clarified that since Bhuiya is not notified as an SC in Odisha, Das could not claim SC status here. However, he also could not automatically be treated as an ST member merely because Bhuiya is listed as an ST in Odisha.Consequently, Justice Mishra quashed the ADM’s letter, holding that the requirement to obtain permission under the 1956 regulation could not be imposed on Das. The sub-registrar-cum-tehsildar, Kuliana, was directed to register the sale deed within three days of production of the certified copy of the judgment, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.According to case records, Das, seeking to meet his medical expenses and repay a hand loan, agreed to sell the land to a Scheduled Caste person for Rs 10 lakh. After receiving the payment and handing over possession, Das presented the sale deed for registration on March 17, 2026, after paying the requisite stamp duty and registration fees.The sub-registrar refused to accept it. Das subsequently approached the district registrar-cum-additional district magistrate (ADM), Mayurbhanj. In a letter issued on April 23, the ADM endorsed the sub-registrar’s order. However, the HC ruled that the refusal to facilitate registration of the sale deed executed by Das was legally not sustainable.
