http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: BHAIYA RAM MUNDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ANIRUDH PATAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/08/1970

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA

CITATION:  1971 AIR 2533            1971 SCR  (1) 804

ACT: Constitution  (Scheduled Tribes)order, 1950, Part  III--When evidence  admissible  for finding the scope of an  entry  in Order--Some  sub-tribes  under  an  entry  included--Whether other  sub-tribes  deemed excluded--Effect of  admission  by member  of Scheduled Tribe that he was not a member  of  the tribe.

HEADNOTE: In  Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled  Tribes)  Order. 1950, issued by the President of India under Art. 342, Munda is specified as a scheduled tribe, but not Patar.  The first respondent  was  a Patar.  He was declared  elected  to  the Bihar Legislative Assembly from a scheduled tribes constitu- ency.   The  appellant, who was an  unsuccessful  candidate, filed an election petition for setting aside the election on the  ground that the first respondent was not a member of  a scheduled  tribe.   The High Court  dismissed  the  petition holding that the first respondent was a Munda and was  hence a member of a scheduled tribe. In appeal to this Court, HELD:     (1)  Evidence  is admissible for  the  purpose  of showing what an entry    in   the  Presidential  Order   was intended to mean, but not so as to modify    the  order   by including  other tribes.  Since the first respondent’s  case was  not  that  Patars  are a  distinct  community  who  are regarded as Mundas but that Patars are Mundas, evidence  may be given to show that the entry Munda includes Patars.  [814 B-C; 815 A]      B.  Basavalingappa  v. Munichinnappa, [1965]  1  S.C.R. 316,  Bhaiyalal v. Harikishan Singh & Ors. [1965]  2  S.C.R. 877, Laxman Siddappa Naik v.  Kattimani Chaniappa Jamappanna JUDGMENT: C.A.No. 1622/67 dt. 21-5-1968, referred to. (2)  Whether a particular person is a member of a  scheduled tribe  so  declared  by  the  President  is essentially  a question of law.  Though an admission made by him  expressly or  by  implication that he is not a member of  a  scheduled tribe is evidence against him. in an election petition,  the evidence is not conclusive. [808 B-C] (3)  If a member of a scheduled tribe, transfers property by a  deed in which he describes himself to be not a member  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

the   scheduled   tribe  in  order  to  avoid   refusal   of registration under s. 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, he will  not,  on  that account, be disentitled  to  claim  the status  of  a member of scheduled tribe.  It  could  not  be said,  on that ground alone, that the transferor was  not  a member of a scheduled tribe or was estopped from setting  up that status. [808 D-E] (4)  The evidence in the case established that Patars are  a sub-tribe  of  Mundas and that they are not  different  from Mundas. [813 F-G] (5)  If Patars are Mundas, because some sub-tribes of Mundas arc 805 enumerated in the Presidential Order and others are not,  no inference  will  arise  that those not  enumerated  are  not Mundas.    Merely  because  Patars  are   not   specifically mentioned in the Presidential order, they cannot be on  that account alone be excluded from the general heading of Munda. [813 G-H]

& CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.2039 of 1969. Appeal  under s. 116-A of the Representation of  the  People Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated August 19,  1969 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No.9 of 1969. D.   Goburdhun and R. Goburdhun, for the appellant. K.   K.  Sinha,  S.  Thakur Prasad and  S.  S.  Jauhar,  for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J. At the  "mid-term elections" held in January  1969 Anirudh  Patar  (the  1st respondent  in  this  appeal)  was declared elected to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from  the Tamar  Assembly  Constituency No.  296  (Scheduled  Tribes). Bhaiya Ram Munda-an unsuccessful candidate at the  election- applied  to  the High Court of Patna for  an  order  setting aside  the election on the plea that the 1st respondent  was not  a member of a scheduled tribe and was on that  account not qualified under s. 5 of the Representation of the People Act.  1951  to be chosen to fill a seat in  the  Legislative Assembly of Bihar from a reserved constituency for scheduled tribes.  The High Court dismissed the petition holding  that the 1st respondent was a member of a Scheduled Tribe  called "Munda" specified in Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order,- 1950 issued in exercise of the powers  under Art. 342 of the Constitution.  Bhaiya Ram Munda has appealed to  this Court under s. II 6A of the Representation  of  the People Act, 1951. Section  5  of the Representation of the  People  Act,  1951 provides:               "A person shall not be qualified to be chosen               to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly  of               a State--unless--               (a)   in  the case of a seat reserved for  the               Scheduled  Castes or for the Scheduled  Tribes               of that State, he is a member of any, of those               castes  or of these tribes, as, the  case  may               be, and is an               806               elector for any Assembly constituency in  that               State;               Article 342 of the Constitution, insofar as it               is relevant, provides               "(1)  The  President may with respect  to  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

             State or Union territory,..... by public noti-               fication,   specify  the  tribes   or   tribal               communities  Or  parts  of  or  groups  within               tribes  or tribal communities which shall  for               the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to               be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that  State               or Union Territory, as the case may be.               (2)   Parliament  may  be law  include  in  or               exclude  from  the list  of  Scheduled  Tribes               specified  in  a  notification  issued   under               clause  (1) any tribe or tribal  community  or               part  of or group within any tribe  or  tribal               community,    but   save   as   aforesaid    a               notification  issued  under  the  said  clause               shall   not  be  varied  by   any   subsequent               notification."               In  exercise of the powers conferred  by  Art.               342, the President issued an Order called  the               Constitution  (Scheduled Tribes)  Order,  1950               which by the second clause provided :               The tribes or tribal communities, or parts of.               or    groups   within,   tribes   or    tribal               communities-specified in Parts I to XII of the               Scheduled to this Order shall, in relation  to               the  States to which those Parts  respectively               relate,  be deemed to be Scheduled  Tribes  so               far as regards members thereof resident in the               localities  specified  in  relation  to   them               respectively   in   those   Parts   of    that               Schedule.,, In the Schedule the names of certain tribes are set out, and in  Part  III  under the heading the  State  of  Bihar,  are designated  certain tribes.  The tribes designated  in  Part III  are deemed to be Scheduled Tribes throughout the  State of  Bihar.  Mundas does but Patar does not occur in Part  M. The  1st  respondent contended that Patars are  Mundas,  and that  it is only non-Mundas who call the  various  exogenous groups  belonging  to  the  tribes  residing  generally   in Singbhum  and  the adjacent area and belonging  to  various kilis  as Mundas, or Pator Mundas, Mahal;  Mundas,  Tamarks, Bunduars  and Marang Mundas and others.  He  contended  that he  does not cease to be a Munda merely because  his  family name is Patar. The  appellant raised two arguments in support of his  peti- tion-(1) that Patars are not Mundas and (2) that even if 807 patars  are  Mundas,  since the name of  Patar  has  not  be included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, Part III applicable to Bihar, he cannot be chosen to sit  in the  Assembly  from  the  reserved  constituency  by  merely calling himself a Munda. Considerable  evidence  oral and  documentary  was  tendered before  the  High  Court.   In  support  of  his’  case  the appellant.  relied upon-(1) a sale deed executed by the  1st respondent  on January 11, 1969 which recited that  the  1st respondent  did  not  claim  the status of  a  member  of  a Scheduled Tribe; (2) entries in the revenue records and  (3) oral  evidence  of  witnesses  who  deposed  that  the   1st respondent was not a Munda. In support of his case the 1st respondent relied upon-(1)  a judgment  of the High Court of Patna declaring  that  Patars are Mundas; (2) Khatian entries in which Patars were entered as  Mundas (3) a certificate dated July 15, 1941  given  by Rai Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy (many years before the date on which  the dispute arose certifying that one  Kshetra  Mohan

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Patar  son of Gobardhan Patar of village Kumar  Hapa,  than& Tamar, District Ranchi belonged to the Patar (Munda)  tribe; and  (4)  oral testimony of the witnesses who  deposed  that the, 1st respondent was a Munda. The name of the first respondent was entered in the  voters’ list as  a  member  of  a  Scheduled  Tribe.   The   first respondent  stood as a candidate for election to  the  Bihar State Legislative Assembly in 1962, and was elected from the Scheduled  Tribe constituency.  Nomination was filed by  him at  that  election  as  a Patar.   In  1967  too  the  first respondent stood from the Tamar Scheduled Tribe Constituency for  election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly but  he  was defeated.   It also appears from the record that Mr.  Jaipal Singh  who was also a Patar was elected as a member  of  the Parliament  to  a reserved seat from a constituency  in  the Bihar State, was a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The  first question to be determined is whether  Patars  are not  Mundas : The appellant placed strong reliance  upon a sale  deed executed by the first respondent can January  11, 1969 (few days before the elections) conveying property  and declaring therein that the first respondent was not a member of any Scheduled Caste or backward community.  Under s.  46 of,  the  Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act VT of 1908  without  the sanction  of  the  Deputy Commissioner the  members  of  the Scheduled Tribes cannot transfer their lands.  It is  common ground  that to the area of the Tamar Constituency that  Act applied.   A  deed  evidencing sale of  land  presented  for registration by a member of a scheduled Tribe 808 could  not be registered unless the sale was  sanctioned  by the Deputy Commissioner.  According to the first  respondent it  was the vender who inserted into the deed the  statement in   order  to  avoid  refusal  of  )registration   by   the authorities.  Assuming that the statement was  incorporated in  the  deed with the consent of the  first  respondent  no estoppel arises against him.  Whether a particular person is a  member of a Scheduled Tribe so declared by the  President under Art. 342 of the Constitution is essentially a question of  law.   Though an admission made by him expressly  or  by implication that he is not a member-of a Scheduled Tribe  is evidence  against him in an election petition, the  evidence is not conclusive. Khatian entries Exts.  1/a and 1/b show that sale deeds exe- cuted  by Patars were admitted to registration and  mutation entries were posted pursuant thereto.  There is no  evidence whether  in  respect of those sale beads permission  of  the Deputy Commissioner was taken before they were executed.  It is  not  possible  to infer from the  revenue  entries  that sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was not obtained or that Patars  are  not  Mundas.   Granting  that  the  prohibition contained  in  S. 46 of the Chhota Nagpur  Tenancy  Act  was violated  by a member of a Scheduled Tribe, he will  not  on that account be disentitled to claim the status of a member of a schedule tribe.  The transactions of sale may be  void, but  it cannot be said, relying.on that ground  alone,  that the  transferor was not member of a Scheduled Tribe  or  was estopped  from setting up that status.  Exts. 1(g) and  1(h) are sale deeds executed by Mundas and sanction of the Deputy Commissioner  was  obtained  before execution  of  the  sale deeds.   Exhibits  4 and 4 (a) are certified copies  of  two raiyat, Khatians in which the caste of the tenants who  were Patars  is  mentioned  as  Patar,  but  from  that  also  no inference arises that they are a tribe distinct from Mundas. The oral evidence led on behalf of the appellant is  uncon- vincing.   Faud Singh Munda P.W. I asserted that Patras  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

not  a branch of the Munda Tribe, but they are a  separate caste.  According to him Patars could convey. their property without  the  permission of the  Deputy  Commissioner,  that Pahans  perform  ceremonies in the families of  Mundas,  but Brahmins assisted by barbers perform religious ceremonies in the  families  of Patars, that Mundas do not offer  Find  in Shradh,  Patars do offer; that the Sun is the supreme  deity for  the  Mundas but Patars worship Rama and  Krishna; and that  Mundas celebrate Sarbul festival, but Patars  do  not. In  cross-examination he stated that he has  never  attended any  Patar marriage ceremony or Shradh and that he  had  not seen  any Patar. offering any Find but had only heard  about it, The witness was unable to say how Patars 809 performed  the  puja.  It  appeared that  he  had  not  much information even about Munda customs and ceremonies. The statement of Gandharb Singh Munda P.W. 2 in examination- in-chief  was similar to the testimony of P.W. 1  In  cross- examination  the witness stated that Mundas were (not  Gonds but  they  were  "a separate caste" and that  he  had  never attended a Patar marriage ceremony and was never invited  by any  Patar  on the occasion of Shradh.  He admitted  "  that non-Mundas  also  celebrated Sarbul.  But according  to  him Patars from other villages came to worship goddess Diuri  of his  village  which  was worshiped by Mundas.   He  did  not appear to be competent to speak about the customs and usages of  Patars  as  distinguished from  those  of  Mundas.   The witness  did  not know that those who are  generally  called Mundas are in reality Komput Mundas. Sudhir Kumar Choudhury P.W. 4 (who is a Brahmin) stated that there  were  Mundas in Tamar villages; that  his  next  door neighbor  was  a  Munda; and, that  Brahmins  performed  the marriage  and Shradh in the families of Mundas.   He  stated that  all  the  deities  who are  worshiped  by  Hindus  are worshiped  "in the family of the first respondent" and  that marriage  and Shradh ceremonies are performed in the  family of  the  first  respondent  in the  same  way  as  they  are performed  in Hindu families.  The witness admitted that  he had not personally seen the performance of Puja of Rama and Krishna  in  the house of the first  respondent.   The  High Court observed that the answers given by the witness in  his cross-examination indicated that he had no familiarity  with the customs of Mundas. Abhimanyu  Singh Munda P.W. 5 stated that the first  respon- dent  was a Patar by caste and the customs of  marriage  and Shradh  amongst  the Mundas and Patars were  different.   In cross-examination he said that in the area within the Tamar Police  Station  Mundas speak Mundari whereas  Patars  speak Panch Pargania.  This, was however, plainly contrary to what the other witnesses had stated.  He said that there was only one family of Patars in his village; that he was invited  by that  family on the occasions of marriage and  Shradh, and that  he did not know the Gotra of that family.  He  further stated that all the scheduled tribes of Chhota Nagpur  drink Hanria but the witness denied that the Patars drink  Hanria. In the  view of the High Court, reliance could not be placed upon  the  testimony of this witness.  We see no  reason  to disagree with it. P.W.  6  is  the appellant himself.  He  repeated  what  was stated by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. He asserted that Patars do  not  belong to a Scheduled Tribe, He  admitted  however that 810 he had never attended any ceremony of marriage or Shradh  or any other function in a Patar family and that he could  not,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

competently  speak about the ceremonial customs  of  Patars. He also denied that the son of P.W. I was an employee of the Seva Mandal, a fact which was admitted by P.W. 1. The first respondent has relied in support of his case  upon Exts.   A,, B, B/1 & C. Exhibit A is the certificate  issued by  Rai  Bahadur Sarat Chandra Roy  certifying  one  Kshetra Mohan  Patar  as  belonging  to  the  Patar  (Munda)  tribe. Exhibits B and B/ 1 are entries in the Khatian and Ext.   C is  the judgment delivered by Ahmad, J., of the  Patna  High Court  in  a case relating to the acceptance  of  Patars  as Mundas. Kshetra  Mohan Patar R.W. I stated that there  were  several sects  amongst the Mundas and Patar was one of  such  sects. The witness further stated that Pahans Officiate as  priests at  the  time of marriage in the families of  all  the  sub- castes  of Mundas and Brahmins do not officiate as  priests on  such occasions; that Patars also bury the bones of  such dead  bodies  which are burnt at a place  called  Susan  or Hargaddi  and  that  they also worship  the  Sun  and  other deities worshiped by Mundas.  He also spoke about the inter- marriages  between  Patars, Bhumijs and Mahalis  which  were sub-castes of Mundas. Daroo  Pahan R.W. 2 is not a Patar but a Munda.   He  stated that  Khangars  and Patars are sub-castes of  Mundas,  that some boys of Mundas of his village had married Patar  girls, that  those boys with their Patar wives were living  in  his village.   He  also  said that Puja  was  performed  by  his brother, when Barats of Mundas returned to the village  with Patar wives.  He gave details about the names of some of the Patar girls married to Munda boys in his village. Jamir  Munda R.W. 3 said that he had married a  Patar  girl; and  that  there  were  two  main  branches’  of  Mundas-one consisting  of  Patars, Khangars and Mahalis and  the  other consisting  of Babuans.  Mundas and Kol Mundas,  and  except Babuans others inter-married among themselves.  He stated in cross-examination  that  Patar is merely a title and  not  a sub-caste. Khudi  Ram  Munda  R.W. 4 stated that there  were  two  main branches   of  Mundas-one  consisting  of  Mundas,   Patars, Khangars  and Mahalis. and the other consisting of  Mankis, Thakurs  Bahuans  and Mundaris; that  Pahans  officiated  as priests on the occasion of marriages in the family of Patars and  Patars also Derfomed Sarna Pula and  celebrated  Sarbul festival;  that  his nephew had married the  daughter  of  a Patar and-that his 811 present  wife  was also a Patar.   In  cross-examination  he admitted that those Patars who were rich called Brahmins  to perform Puja etc. on ceremonial occasions. Ram Jatan Patar R.W. 5 stated that in the Khatian the  caste of  his  father  was entered as Patar  Munda.   He  further stated  that  the daughter of his nephew  Satya  Narain  was married with the nephew of Khudi Ram Munda. Raghunath  Munda R.W. 6 stated that there were two  branches of  Mundas-Mundas and Patar Mundas.  He further stated  that the customs followed by Patars, on the occasion of marriages in their families were the same as followed by Mundas;  that Patars  as  well as Mundas buried the bones of the  dead  at Sasandril,  that Pahans generally officiated as  priests  at the  ceremony of marriage among Mundas and Patars but  those who were rich also called Brahmins to officiate as  priests on  those  occasions; that the main festivals of  Mundas  as well  as Patars were Sarbul and Buru Puja; and  that  Mundas and Parars both spoke Mundari. Bahadur Patar R.W. 7 gave similar testimony.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

Harihar  Singh  Munda  R.W. 9  supported  the  testimony  of witnesses  R.Ws. 3 & 4. He spoke about the various sects  of the  Mundas  and also about the prevalence of  some  customs relating  to  marriages and other ceremonies of  Patars  and Mundas. Kumar  Amarendra  Nath Sah Deo R.W. 10 stated  that  in  the marriages  in  the families of Mundas and  Patars  generally Pahans officiated as priests; that those who were rich  also invited  Brahmin’s  on the occasion and  there  were  inter- marriages  between Patars and other branches of the  Mundas. He  also spoke about the custom of burying the bones of  the deceased members in the families of Patars. The  first  respondent  R.W. II stated  that  his  name  was entered  in the voters’ list prepared in 1960, that  he  was elected  to  the  Bihar State Legislative  Assembly  in  the elections held in 1962 and that he lost in the elections  of 1967.  He also corroborated the statements of his  witnesses relating  to  the customs of Mundas and’ has  asserted  that Patars are Mundas. Dr.  Sachchidananda R.W. 8 is a renewed anthropologist.   He has made a study of tribal culture in Bihar and has  written several  books  on anthropology.  In his book  "Profiles  of Tribal  Culture in Bihar" and in his articles on  Mundas  in Bihar  he has stated that Patars are Mundas.   He  confirmed that opinion on the basis of anthropological studies, 812 Dr,  Sarat Chandra Roy in his publication "Mundas  and  this Country" at p. 400 has observed :               "The  Munda  tribe  is divided  into  a  large               number  of  exogamous  groups  called   kilis.               According to Munda tradition, all the  members               of the same kili are descended from one common               ancestor.   But  such a tradition may  not  be               quite  correct  with regard  to  the  original               kilis.  Though exogamous as regards the kilis,               the  Mundas are endogamous so  far  as  other               tribes are concerned.  Thus, there can now  be               no valid marriages, according to Munda custom,               between  a Munda and the member of  any  other               Kolarian’ tribe, such as the Santals,               Dr. Sarat Chandra Roy has then referred to the               various  sub-tribes  known  as  Bhumij-Mundas,               Khangars and observed               "In  Parganas Bundu and Tamar,  these  Khangar               Mundas are known as Patar Mundas, in parts  of               Kunti  Thana as Mahli Mundas, in Singbhum as               Tamarias,  in  Gangpur  as  Bunduars  and   in               Pargana  Balkaddi by the significant  name  of               Marang Mundas."               In  his "Profiles of Tribal Culture in  Bihar"               Dr. Sachchidananda has said at p. 40 :               "The  entire Munda tribe consists of an  elder               and younger branch, the Mahali Mundako and the               Kompat  Mundako respectively.  The former  are               found  mainly in Tamar Pargana of  the  Ranchi               District   and  are  also  known as   Patar.               Ordinarily  Munda  or those belonging  to  the               younger  branch  form the bulk  of  the  Munda               population.     Both   these   branches    are               endogamous.    The   former   are   considered               socially inferior to the latter."               The author then stated at p. 41               "In Tamar area the social stratification among               the  Munda has reached a developed form.   Six               distinct    classes   or   castes    may    be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             distinguished.  These may be grouped into  two               viz.  (a) the Zamindars or landlords  and  (b)               the tenants.  In group A we have at the  top,               landlords called Thakur who hold above fifteen               villages each.  Next come Manki who are lesser               landlords holding upto ten or eleven  villages               each. In group B are the Mundari who are Munda               tenants.   Intermarriage between  Mundari  and               the above mentioned four classes is well  nigh               impossible due to great disparity in  economic               and social status.  At the bottom               813               of  the Munda society in Tamar are  the  Patar               who belong to the Mahali-Mundako branch of the               tribe.   Though they hold small bits  of  land               there  is no social intercourse  between  them               and  the  upper  five  groups.   Not  only  is               intermarriage   unthinkable  but  even   water               cannot be taken from the hands of a Patar." Patars  are it appears regarded as the lowest in the  social order amongst the Mundas but they are still Mundas. In   Encyclopedia  Mundarica  by  Rev.   John   Hoffman   in collaboration  with Rev.  Arthur Van Emelen, VoL IX,  at  p. 2881 it is stated that "Munda is a name which has been given to the Mundas by the Hindus" and is exclusively used by  all but the Mundas themselves. Under the heading Munda are given the names of different-sub-tribes of the Mundas one of which is  Mahdli.   At  p. 2756in the same  book  after  the  head "Mahali"  it is said that a Mahali is a Munda of  the  elder branch.   The author then proceeded to say that the  Mahalis are also called Tamadias especially by Hindus and in  Chota- Nagpur  they are called Khangars.  In Tamar they are  called Pators.  The Mundari they speak is characterized by a  great number of vocal checks.  They have practically all the clans (kilis) found amongst the Mundas. The  evidence  given on behalf of the  first  respondent  is amply   supported   by   studies   made   by   distinguished anthropologists.   The  first  respondent  was  without  any objection  recorded in the voters’ list as a member  of  the Scheduled  Tribe.  He was elected in 1962 from  a  scheduled tribe  constituency.  He again contested the elections  from that constituency in 1967 but he was defeated. It is only in 4969 when at the fresh elections that he contested the  seat and  was declared elected when an objection was raised  that he did not belong to a scheduled tribe.  On a  consideration of  all  the evidence we are of the view that Patars  are  a sub-tribe  of  Mundas and that they are not  different  from Mundas. The alternative argument advanced by counsel for the  appel- lant has also no substance.  It is true that in Part III  of the  Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes)  Order, 1950  issued  under Art. 342 of the  Constitution  the  name "Munda"  is mentioned and similarly the names of other  sub- tribes  amongst  Mundas  are  mentioned.   Counsel  for  the appellant  contended that if according to Dr.  Sachchidanand Mahalis, Ho, Bhumijs, Asur, Baiga, and Khangars are  Mundas, specific  mention  of some of those tribes in  the  Schedule Tribes  Order  clearly indicated that Patars  who are  not mentioned  therein  are  not a Scheduled  Tribe  within  the meaning of the Order.  There is however no 814 warrant for that view.  If Patars are Mundas, because  some sub-tribes of Mundas are enumerated in the Order and  others are  not, no inference will arise that those not  enumerated are  not Mudas.  We are unable to hold that  because  Patars

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

are  not specifically mentioned in the List they  cannot  be included in the general heading Munda. Decisions  in  support  of the contention  that  the  Courts cannot allow evidence, to be taken for proving that  certain classes  of  people though not expressly designated  in  the Presidential Order were intended to be covered by the  Order may be briefly referred to. It may suffice to state  however that it is not the case of the first respondent that  Patars are  a distinct community, but that they should be  regarded as  Mundas because of the similarity of  customs,  religious beliefs, forms of worship and other social obligations. In  B. Basavalingappa v. D. Munichinnappa (1)  the  relevant facts  were that M who was elected from a  Scheduled  Castes constituency claimed to belong to the Bhovi caste which  was one  of the Scheduled Castes mentioned in  the  Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 issued by the President under Art.  341 of the Constitution.  In an election petition  it- was  claimed that M belonged to the Voddar caste  which  was not  mentioned in the Order and that on- that account M  was not  entitled  to stand for election  from  Scheduled  Caste constituency.  Evidence was led before the Election Tribunal that Bhovi was a sub-caste of the Voddar caste and as M  did not  belong  to the Bhovi sub-caste he could not  stand  for election  from the constituency.  The High Court  in  appeal held  that  although Voddar, caste was not included  in  the Order,  yet  considering  the  facts  and  circumstances  in existence at the time when the Order was passed in 1950, the Bhovi  caste  mentioned  in the order was the  same  as  the Voddar caste.  In appeal to this Court it was contended that the  High  Court was wrong in considering the  evidence  and then coming to the conclusion that the caste Bhovi mentioned in  the  Order was meant for the caste Voddar and  that  the Tribunal’  should  have  declined to allow  evidence  to  be produced which would have the effect of modifying the  Order issued by the President.  This Court held that the  evidence clearly showed that in 1950 when the Order was passed  there was  no  caste in the then Mysore State which was  known  as Bhovi  and the Order could not have intended to recognise  a caste  which did not exist.  It was therefore  necessary  to find out which caste was meant by the use of the name  Bhovi and  for that purpose evidence was rightly recorded  by  the Tribunal  and  acted  upon by the High  Court.   This  Court accordingly confirmed the, view of the High [1965] 1 S. C.  R. 316. 315 Court.   The decision in this case lends no support  to  the contention that evidence is inadmissible for the- purpose of showing what an entry in the Presidential Order was intended to mean. The  next  case  in the order of sequence  is  Bhaiyalal  v. Harikishan Singh and Others.(1) In that case an election  to a  State Legislature was challenged an the ground  that  the successful  candidate belonged to the Dohar caste which  was not  recognised  as  Scheduled Caste  for  the  district  in question,  and on that ground the successful  candidate  was not competent to stand for election.  The Election  Tribunal declared the election invalid and the finding was  confirmed on appeal by the High Court.  It was hold by this Court that the plea that the appellant is not a Chamar, and as such, he could-  not  claim the status of a Chamar claiming  that  he belonged to Dohar Caste which is a sub-caste, of the  Chamar caste  and  that  an  enquiry  of  the  kind  would  not  be permissible  having  regard to the provisions  contained  in Art.  341  of the Constitution.  It was urged in  that  case that  Chamars were recognised as a Scheduled Caste  but  not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

the  Dohar.  The successful candidate was, it was  found,  a Dohar  and was not a Chamar.  The Court declined to allow  a plea to be raised that Dohars were in some areas  recognised as  a  sub-caste  of Chamars.  The  contention  was  plainly futile, once it was held that the candidate was not a Chamar in  the constituency to which the Order related  and  Dehars were  not  a Scheduled )Caste.  The Court  observed,that  in specifying  castes,  races or tribes under Art. 341  of  the Constitution, the President had been expressly authorised to Emit  the  notification  to parts of or  groups  within  the caste, race or tribe, and the President may well come to the conclusion  that  not the whole caste, race, or  tribe,  but parts  of  or  groups  within  them  should  be   specified. Similarly the President can specify castes, races or  tribes or  parts thereof in relation not only to the entire  State, but  in  relation  to the parts of the  State  where  he  is satisfied that the examination of the social and educational backwardness  of  the races, caste or tribe  justifies  such specification.   On that view the Court upheld the  decision of  the High Court that the successful candidate who  was  a Dohar was not, in the Constituency from which the case arose a  Chamar within the meaning of the Constitution  (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In Laxman Siddappa Naik v. Kattimani Chaniappa jamappanna  & Ors.(2) an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Mysore Legislative Assembly for a seat reserved for a member of the Scheduled  Tribes filed an election petition  alleging  that the other three candidates were Bedars a tribe not specified in  Part VIII para 2 of the Constitution (Scheduled  Tribes) Order, (1) [1965] 2 S.C.R. 877. (2) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 805. 816 1950.   The  successful  candidate asserted that  he  was  a Nayaka  and the Nayakas were also called Bedars.  The  High Court  held  that  there  was no  Nayaka  in  the  area  and successful  candidate was a Bedar.  This Court allowed  the appeal  and held that Nayakas were to be found not  only  in the  districts  of  Mysore  but  also  in  Maharashtra   and Rajasthan.   "This  tribal  community  was  therefore  wide- spread"  and  it was not possible to say that there  was  no Nayaka  in the district to which the appellant belonged.   A bare assertion  by  the  election  petitioner  that   the appellant  was  a  Bedar did not  suffice  to  displace  the acceptance  of  the  nomination paper or the  claim  of  the appellant that he was a Nayaka.  In the, present case it is not the contention of the  first respondent  that he was a Patar-member of a tribe  which  is not  Munda, but he was recognized as a Munda.  His case  was that in his tribe he was as a Munda Patar. Attention may also be directed to a recent judgment of  this Court in, Dina v. Narayan Singh & Anr. (1) In that case Dina Narnavare   was   declared  elected   to   the   Maharashtra Legislative  Assembly  from  the  Armori  Scheduled   Tribes constituency.  His election was set aside on the application filed  by the first respondent on the ground that  Dina  was not  eligible  to  stand  as a  candidate  from  a  reserved constituency.   Dina  had declared in his  nomination  paper that  he was a member of the Gond (Mana) caste and the  same was  a  Scheduled  Tribe in Taluka  Gadchiroli  of  District Chanda  in  the Maharashtra State and being a  Gond  though styled  as Mana he was entitled to the privileges given by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.  This Court on  a consideration of the evidence came to  the  conclusion that  there  was  no sub-tribe of Maratha  Manas  among  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

Gonds.   It  was found that the customs, manners,  forms  (A worship  and  dress  of  the members  of  the  Maratha  Mana community were all different from the customs, manners, form of  worship and dress of the Gonds.  In that view the  Court held  that Mana community amongst the Marathas could not  be regarded  as  Gond and the appellant was,  not  entitled  to stand  for election as Gond.  The decision  clearly  decides that the name by which a tribe or sub-tribe is known is  not decisive.   Even if the tribe of a person is different  from the  name included in the Order issued by the President,  it may  be  shown that the name is included in the Order  is  a general name applicable to sub-tribes. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. V.P.S.                           Appeal dismissed. (2) C. A. No. 1622 of 1957 decided on May, 21, 1968. 817