Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the purchasers’ appeal in a dispute over cancellation of a Scheduled Tribe certificate used to challenge old land sales. Although the amended scrutiny provision could govern the pending proceedings, the Court declined another remand because the private respondent’s unsupported status claim and inconsistent conduct had no merit on the record.
Issues
- Whether the scrutiny committee could examine the pending cancellation dispute after the procedural amendment.
- Whether a further remand was warranted given the evidence and conduct concerning the claimed tribal status.
Provisions considered
- Section 8A(c), as amended in 2017, West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994The Court treated the enlarged cancellation-related jurisdiction as procedural and applicable to the pending matter. It found a detailed decision on retrospective or retroactive operation unnecessary, then declined remand on the facts. (¶¶ 38, 39, 40, 41)
Held
- The 2017 amendment included cancellation cases within the Committee’s remit. Since the procedure remained pending for decision on merits, it could be examined under the amended procedural law; the Court did not resolve the broader retrospective-versus-retroactive debate. (¶ 38)
- The father’s employment record recorded general-category status, and no tribal certificate for him was produced. The son had sworn affidavits disclaiming tribal status and himself sold property without tribal-transfer permission. The original certificate and supporting material could not be produced in the cancellation proceedings. These circumstances undermined the particular claim advanced. (¶¶ 29, 31, 32, 33, 39, 40)
- The disputed 1983 transactions were selectively challenged in 2004 on the strength of the son’s later certificate, while other family sales remained unchallenged. In the accumulated facts and conduct, the Court found no merit in his claim and considered another remand futile. (¶¶ 28, 39, 40, 41)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court’s judgment dated 30 March 2015 was set aside. The Court declined to remit the dispute to any authority for further examination, finding no merit in respondent No.15’s claim.