The determination of caste based on migration is unsustainable; birthright dictates caste status, necessitating a valid certificate from a competent authority for claims.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) passed by the Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput (Opposite Party No.4) in SRP No.458 of 2014.

2. The factual backgrounds of this writ petition, which prompted the petitioner for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Party No.5 (Siba Sankar Tripathy) filed SRP No.458 of 2014 under Section 15 (b) of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 against the petitioner of this writ petition, i.e., Raghupatruni Satyanarayan arraying him as Opposite Party No.1 in that SRP No.458 of 2014 praying for correction his caste reflected in Column No.2 of the Hal RoR of Khata No.52 of village Semiliguda under Semiliguda Tahasil in district of Koraput from “Kandha” to “Kapu” on the ground that, the Opposite Party No.1(Raghupatruni Satyanarayan of that SRP No.458 of 2014(who is the petitioner in this writ petition) belong to “Kapu” by caste, but, not “Kandha” by caste, as per the previous revenue records, to which, Opposite Party No.1 in that SRP No.458 of 2014 (petitioner in this writ petition) objected.

After hearing from both the sides, the Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4) allowed that SRP No.458 of 2014 filed by Siba Sankar Tripathy(Opposite Party No.5 in this writ petition) as per the impugned order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) and held that, the caste entry of the Opposite Party No.1 of that SRP No.458 of 2014, i.e., Raghupatruni Satyanarayan in Column No.2 of the RoR vide Khata No.52 of village-Semiliguda under Semiliguda Tahasil in district of Koraput as “Kandha” is not correct, because, his correct caste is “Kapu” and directed Tahasildar, Semiliguda(Opposite Party No.3) for correction of his caste in Column No.2 of Khata No.52 from “Kandha” to “Kapu” and directed to maintain the same in the records of that Khata No.52 in the Tahasil Office by the Tahasildar, Semiliguda and also further held that, as the mistake of caste entry of the Opposite Party No.1 (Raghupatruni Satyanarayan) in Column No.2 of the Settlement RoR for Khata No.52 is being corrected, the copy of the said RoR vide Khata No.52 available in the district Record Room with wrong caste entry as “Kandha” is treated as modified to “Kapu” for all purposes.

3. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) passed in SRP No.458 of 2014 by the Additional Land Commissioner, Koraput(Opposite Party No.4), the Opposite Party No.1 thereof, i.e., Raghupatruni Satyanarayana challenged the same by filing this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing that impugned order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure-7 series) against the petitioner of SRP No.458 of 2014, i.e., Siba Shankar Tripathy arraying him as Opposite Party No.5 and also arraying the State and other Government Officials as Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4.

4. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 and learned Standing Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4.

5. It is the undisputed case of the parties that:

(i) No caste certificate was filed or produced by the petitioner in this writ petition before Opposite Party No.4 in SRP No.458 of 2014 obtaining the same from the competent authority showing his caste as “Kandha”, though, the petitioner in this writ petition had contended that, Caste Certificate was issued in his favour in RMC No.267/81 indicating his caste as “Kandha”.

(ii) The evidence of the witnesses in SRP No