SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
A.A. Sayed, CJ, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J
Kamlesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2771 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep K. Pandey
For the Respondents: Ritta Goswami

Entries in revenue records, such as the 'Shajra Nasab', carry a presumption of truth under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and cannot be unilaterally altered or ignored in writ jurisdiction to grant OBC certificates if the recorded caste is not an OBC category.

Headnote:The petitioners sought the inclusion of the Bhatt (Brahmin) community in the State list of Other Backward Classes (OBC), correction of revenue records to reflect their sub-caste, and the issuance of OBC certificates. The state respondents submitted that the caste Bhat (Brahman) had already been included in the State List of OBC via notification dated 09.09.2011. The primary issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to OBC certificates and revenue record corrections. The court observed that the 'Shajra Nasab' (revenue record) specifically listed the petitioners as 'Brahman Bhardwaj', a category not recognized as OBC. The court reasoned that the presumption of truth attached to revenue records under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, precludes the grant of such reliefs in writ jurisdiction when records contradict the claim. Hence, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

This petition coming on for admission this day, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, passed the following:

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:-

(i). That the respondents may kindly be directed to implement the report with regard to the inclusion of Bhatt (Brahmin) in the State list of OBC category, within time bound manner.

(ii). That the respondents may also kindly be directed to correct the revenue record of the petitioners by including the sub-caste of the petitioners (Bhatt) in the revenue record.

(iii). That the respondents may be directed to issue Other Backward Class certificate in favour of the petitioners.

(iv). That the respondents may also kindly be directed to decide the representation dated 28.09.2018 (Annexure P-5) within time bound manner.”

2. Insofar as the first relief is concerned, the stand of respondents No.1 and 2 in their reply is that vide notification dated 09.09.2011 (Annexure R/1), caste Bhat (Brahman) has already been included in the State List of Other Backward Classes (OBC). Thus, prayer for inclusion of Bhat (Brahman) in the State List of OBC category does not survive as it has already been granted by the State.

3. As far as the second and third reliefs prayed for by the petitioners are concerned, the stand of respondents No.5 and 6 is that the caste certificates are issued on the basis of revenue record. In the revenue record, more particularly the ‘Shajra Nasab’, the petitioners are recorded as ‘Brahman Bhardwaj’, which is not an OBC category. The presumption of truth is attached to the revenue record (Shajra Nasab) under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The respondents have also placed on record ‘Shajra Nasab’ of the petitioners for the year 1970-71, wherein the caste of the petitioners is entered as ‘Brahman Bhardwaj’. It has also been submitted that in the Shajra Nasab attached to the Jamabandi for the year 1957-58 also, the caste of the ancestors of the petitioners is reflected as ‘Brahman Bhardwaj’. Petitioners have not disputed these documents and recording of their caste therein as ‘Brahman Bhardwaj’. Admittedly, ‘Brahman Bhardwaj’ is not recognized as belonging to OBC category. In the face of these documents, reliefs No.2 and 3 prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

4. Hence, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.

However, it goes without saying that it would be open for the petitioners to take recourse to the remedies available to them in law to seek correction in the revenue record.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top