Back
Naimunnisha Fails to Prove Scheduled Tribe Status: Dismisses Land Transfer Challenge
A Question of Identity: Did Conversion End Scheduled Tribe Status?
The recently delivered a significant ruling on the interplay between religious conversion and Scheduled Tribe (ST) status, dismissing three writ petitions filed by Nanhki @ Naimunnisha. The petitioner had challenged orders by the Deputy Collector, Duddhi, which declared land transfers in her favour void on the ground that she failed to prove her continuing ST status after marrying a Muslim man and adopting a new identity.
Justice Arun Kumar, presiding over a single bench, held that while conversion to another religion alone does not automatically extinguish ST status, the question is ultimately one of fact. In this case, the petitioner could not demonstrate that she continued to adhere to the customs, traditions, and community life of the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe, and therefore the transfers were rightly invalidated under protective legislation.
The Transfers and the Challenge
The petitioner, claiming to be a member of the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe by birth, had purchased agricultural land in Village Bagharu, District Sonbhadra, through three registered sale deeds executed between and . The vendors belonged to the Gour Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner asserted that her ST certificate, issued by the Tehsildar, was valid and that the sale deeds disclosed the caste status of all parties. Revenue entries were made in her favour, and she remained in possession.
However, in , the Deputy Collector initiated proceedings under , read with . After inquiry, the authority found that the petitioner had married Sirajuddin according to Islamic rites, adopted the name Naimunnisha, and raised two children with Muslim names. The family register recorded her religion as Muslim. Concluding that the petitioner had ceased to belong to the Scheduled Tribe, the authority voided the transfers and directed that the land vest in the State Government.
Arguments: The Petitioner's Case vs. The State's Evidence
The petitioner argued that marriage to a Muslim man could not erase her tribal status acquired by birth. She relied on the 's decision in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika v. State of Gujarat () to argue that a status acquired by birth is not displaced by marriage. She also contended that her ST certificate had never been cancelled and that the delay of several years in initiating proceedings made the action arbitrary.
The State, represented by , countered that the case was not about conversion alone but about a prolonged adoption of a different religious and social identity. The respondents placed reliance on inquiry reports, identity documents, and the family register to show that the petitioner lived as a Muslim for decades, named her children Ejajuddin and Haseena Bano, and had not produced any evidence of continuing connection with the Bhuiyan community.
The Legal Framework: Conversion Does Not Automatically End ST Status
The High Court began by clarifying the legal position. Citing the 's judgment in
Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh
, the bench noted that the
does not prescribe any religion-based exclusion. The determination of ST status must turn on whether the claimant
"continues to possess and is recognised for the
, including customary practices, social organisation, community life and
."
The court accepted that . Each case must be decided on its facts. The petitioner's reliance on Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika was distinguished, as that case dealt with the status of a child born from an inter-community marriage, not the continued status of an adult who had adopted a new identity.
Court's Analysis: Absence of Evidence of Continuing Tribal Connection
Applying these principles, Justice Arun Kumar examined the material on record. The court noted that the State's case was not confined to the fact of marriage but involved a
"course of circumstances extending over several decades."
The petitioner had lived under the name Naimunnisha, raised children with Muslim names, and the family register recorded her religion as Muslim.
Crucially, the court found that the petitioner had not produced
"convincing evidence showing continuity of her connection with the Bhuiyan community."
She had not demonstrated that she continued to follow Bhuiyan customs, participated in its community life, or was accepted by the community. The ST certificate, while relevant, did not preclude examination of her actual status when subsequent material came to light.
The court also rejected the plea of delay, holding that a transfer prohibited by law cannot acquire validity merely by passage of time. It observed that the protective legislation—Section 157-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act—rendered the transfers if the purchaser did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe on the date of transfer.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"The determination of Scheduled Tribe status must turn upon whether the claimant continues to possess and is recognised for the , including customary practices, social organisation, community life and ."
(Para 27) -
"What is of particular importance is the absence of convincing evidence from the petitioner showing continuity of her connection with the Bhuiyan community."
(Para 30) -
"The material relied upon by the respondents indicates that, for several decades, she lived under a different name and within a different religious and social setting."
(Para 33) -
"The petitioner has failed to establish that she continued to possess the status of a member of the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe on the respective dates of execution of the disputed sale deeds."
(Para 42)
The Verdict: Petitions Dismissed, Land Transfers Void
The dismissed all three writ petitions, affirming the orders of the Deputy Collector dated . The court held that the transfers were void under the applicable statutory regime and that neither registration, revenue entries, nor possession could override the prohibition. The competent authority was directed to give effect to the orders in accordance with law. The decision underscores that while conversion alone does not end ST status, a claimant must adduce credible evidence of continuing tribal identity to avail the protective benefits of the law.
