Orissa High Court Rules SC/ST Status Cannot Be Carried Across State Borders

The Orissa High Court has ruled that Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) classifications are specific to individual states and cannot automatically be transferred when a person moves from one state to another. The court observed that caste and tribal classifications under Presidential notifications are based on the socio-economic conditions of communities within the respective states.

The ruling came while hearing a petition filed by Binoy Krishna Das, a resident of Jharkhand who lives in Baripada town in Odisha’s Mayurbhanj district for his trading business. The court quashed an administrative order that required him to obtain prior permission before selling his land, after authorities classified his caste as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that a person belonging to a caste recognised as a Scheduled Caste in one state cannot automatically claim the same status in another state. Equally, the person cannot automatically be treated as a Scheduled Tribe merely because the caste appears in the ST list of the state to which they have moved.

Dispute Over Land Sale in Odisha

The case arose after Das sold 0.14 acres of land in Mayurbhanj district to a buyer belonging to a Scheduled Caste community for ₹10 lakh. The sale deed was executed before the sub-registrar at Kuliana in March 2026.

However, the registration was not accepted, prompting Das to approach the district registrar-cum-additional district magistrate (ADM) of Mayurbhanj.

In a letter dated April 23, the district registrar informed Das that his caste, Bhuiya, was classified as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha. Since the buyer did not belong to a Scheduled Tribe, the authority said prior permission was necessary under Odisha Regulation 2 of 1956.

The regulation places restrictions on certain transfers of land belonging to Scheduled Tribe members. Section 22 of the Odisha Land Reforms Act also addresses restrictions on the transfer of land by ST members to non-tribal persons.

Challenging the administrative decision, Das argued that his caste was recognised as a Scheduled Caste in Jharkhand and that his classification could not be converted into Scheduled Tribe status in Odisha. He maintained that the restrictions governing the transfer of tribal land should therefore not apply to him.

Court Explains State-Specific Caste Classifications

Upholding Das’s argument, Justice Mishra emphasised that Presidential notifications listing Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are prepared with reference to the socio-economic conditions of communities in individual states.

The court noted that the circumstances of a particular caste or tribe may differ from one state to another. Consequently, recognition under one state’s list does not automatically establish the same legal status elsewhere.

The judge observed that Bhuiya was not notified as a Scheduled Caste in Odisha. However, this did not mean that Das could automatically be classified as a Scheduled Tribe in the state simply because Bhuiya appeared in Odisha’s ST list.

The court stressed that the entry in the Presidential notification was specific to Odisha and did not extend to a person belonging to the Bhuiya caste in Jharkhand, where the community was recognised as a Scheduled Caste.

In its observations, the High Court questioned the administrative authority’s decision to require permission under Regulation 2 of 1956 when Das could not automatically be treated as a Scheduled Tribe in Odisha.

High Court Orders Registration of Sale Deed

Finding that the district registrar-cum-ADM had overlooked the distinction between state-specific caste classifications, the High Court quashed the authority’s letter dated April 23.

The court also directed the sub-registrar-cum-tehsildar at Kuliana to register the sale deed.

The ruling underscores the importance of applying caste and tribal classifications in accordance with the relevant Presidential notifications for each state. It also clarifies that a community’s inclusion in one state’s Scheduled Caste list and another state’s Scheduled Tribe list does not, by itself, determine an individual’s legal classification across state borders.

The judgment arose from a dispute over land registration but addresses a broader legal question concerning migration, caste recognition and the application of restrictions on land transfers involving Scheduled Tribe members.

By setting aside the administrative order, the High Court reaffirmed that authorities must establish the applicable legal classification before imposing restrictions intended to protect tribal land.