Conversion Or Inter-Religious Marriage Doesn't Automatically Extinguish ST Status, But Long-Standing Severance From Tribal Identity Does: Allahabad High Court
The Bench held the registered sale deeds in violation of UPZA & LR Act void, noting that the purchaser who adopted muslim identity for decades failed to prove continuing tribal customs and acceptance by bhuiyan community.
Justice Arun Kumar, Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that while a change of religion or inter-religious marriage does not automatically extinguish a person's Scheduled Tribe (ST) status acquired by birth, the status cannot be claimed where a person has completely severed connections with the tribal community and adopted a different religious and social identity over a prolonged period.
Dismissing a batch of writ petitions, the Court upheld orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Duddhi (Sonbhadra) vesting disputed agricultural lands in the State Government. The Court held that since the petitioner failed to prove that she continued to follow tribal customs or maintain community ties, she could not be considered a member of the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe at the time of purchasing the land from tribal vendors. Consequently, the registered sale deeds violated Section 157-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UPZA & LR Act) and were void ab initio.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar observed, “The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that mere conversion to another religion does not, by itself, automatically extinguish Scheduled Tribe status is well founded to that limited extent. In Chandramohanan (supra), the Supreme Court held that there can be no broad proposition of law that a person ceases to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe merely by reason of change of religion. The question whether, notwithstanding conversion, a person continues to remain a member of the tribe is essentially a question of fact, to be determined with reference to the tribal traits, customs, traditions and continuing connection with the tribal community…Thus, conversion, considered in isolation, cannot be treated as an inflexible rule resulting in extinction of Scheduled Tribe status; the issue has to be determined on the facts and evidence of each case”.
“Upon a cumulative consideration of the material, this Court is satisfied that 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. This conclusion is not founded upon the mere fact of her marriage with Sirajuddin, nor upon the mere allegation of conversion, nor upon the isolated entry recording her religion as Muslim. It rests upon the prolonged circumstances brought on record by the respondents concerning her subsequent family, religious and social identity, coupled with the absence of convincing material establishing continued adherence to the customs and social practices of the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe, continuing participation in its community life and acceptance by the Bhuiyan community. The principle that change of religion does not ipso facto terminate Scheduled Tribe status is therefore accepted; however, on the facts established in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the continuing tribal identity necessary to retain that status on the relevant dates”, it noted further.
Advocate Panchu Ram Maurya appeared for the petitioner and Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, born into the Bhuiyan Scheduled Tribe as 'Nanhki', had purchased three parcels of agricultural land in Sonbhadra district between 2011 and 2018 via registered sale deeds. The sellers belonged to the Gour Scheduled Tribe. She asserted that the transactions were between two ST members and relied upon an ST certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Duddhi.
However, following inquiries initiated in 2025, revenue authorities found that she had married a Muslim man (Sirajuddin) decades ago, adopted the name Naimunnisha, raised children with Muslim names, and was recorded as Muslim in the family register. The revenue authority subsequently declared the transfers void and ordered the land to vest in the State under Sections 104 and 105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Challenging the orders, the petitioner argued before the High Court that marriage to a non-tribal or adoption of Islam does not extinguish a tribal status acquired by birth. Opposing the plea, the State contended that a long-standing course of conduct showing total assimilation into another religion eclipses tribal traits, relying on Supreme Court precedents.
The Court observed that the petitioner produced no substantive evidence showing continued adherence to Bhuiyan customs or participation in tribal community life.
“Registration of an instrument establishes its registration; it does not, by itself, validate a transaction which is prohibited by a mandatory provision of law. The recital in a sale deed that the purchaser belongs to the Scheduled Tribe is evidence of the representation contained in the document, but such recital cannot itself confer a statutory status upon a person who did not possess that status on the relevant date. Likewise, subsequent mutation or revenue entries cannot create an independent right contrary to a substantive statutory prohibition”, the Bench said.
“Once the petitioner is found not to have established the requisite Scheduled Tribe status on the respective dates of the transfers, the statutory basis of her acquisition fails. The status of the transferors as members of the Scheduled Tribe cannot, by itself, validate the transfers because Section 157-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 also prohibited transfer in favour of a person who did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe...”, the Bench said further.
Cause Title: Nanhki @ Naimunnisha v. State of U.P. and 3 others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:191554)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Panchu Ram Maurya and Shashank Maurya, Advocates.
Respondents: Anoop Trivedi, Additional Advocate General, Abhishek Shukla, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Anubhav Chandra, Standing Counsel, Pradeep Singh, Advocate.