Back
N. W. SAMBRE, ABHAY J. MANTRI
Gomati Kishor Palliwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 21-03-2018 passed by respondent no.2- Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claims (for short- 'the Scrutiny Committee'), whereby invalidated the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe').
3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). On 05-01-1990, the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Wardha, issued a caste certificate in her favour, recognizing her as 'Mannewar' (Scheduled Tribe'). Based on the said caste certificate, the petitioner came to be appointed to the post of 'Peon'.
4. On 30-07-2013, respondent no.4 forwarded the caste certificate of the petitioner for verification to the respondent no.2 Committee along with the proposal. The petitioner has also submitted the documents before the respondent No. 2 Committee in this regard.
5. The respondent no.2 Committee was of the view that the petitioner's claim is doubtful, hence, the same was forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell has c
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish tribal affiliation, particularly through credible pre-constitutional documentation, which holds greater evidentiary value.
The court emphasized that pre-Constitutional documents are of higher probative value for determining tribe claims, and invalidation by the committee on the basis of affinity test was not legally soun....
The burden of proof under Section 8 of the Act of 2000 requires the petitioner to disprove adverse historical entries to establish her Scheduled Tribe status.
Pre-1956 certified documents hold presumptive probative value in tribe claims; rejection sans expert rebuttal on interpolation invalid. Non-existent adverse entries mere corruptions, not negating con....
The petitioner failed to prove his claim to the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, as older documents indicating 'Mani' had greater probative value, and he tampered with evidence.
Burden of proof for tribal claims relies on historical documents, with older records holding more weight; claims of synonymous tribe names require clear establishment.
Point of Law : Proviso to Section 326 empowers the succeeding Judge to re-summon the witnesses for their further examination, if he is of opinion that further examination is necessary in the interest....
The probative value of pre-constitutional documents showing the caste of the applicant and their ancestors, the requirement for the Scrutiny Committee to record brief reasons before referring a case ....
The burden of proof lies with the claimant to establish caste status, which was not met, leading to the rejection of the claim.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
