the dispute regarding the Batidar with the complainant’s father. Earlier CWJC No. 4431 of 1991 was filed by the complainant’s father and CWJC No. 3831 of 2000 was filed by appellant no. 1, which were jointly disposed by this Court vide order, dated 29.11.2013, by remanding the matter before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, who passed the order after remand, dated 03.05.2018. Being aggrieved, the appellant no. 1 filed CWJC No. 5030 of 2019, which is still pending before this Court. The complainant is respondent no. 13 in the said writ application. Learned counsel further submits that TantiTatwa, which was included by the State Government in the list of Schedule Caste vide resolution, dated 01.07.2015, has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar, Patna v. The State of Bihar and Ors. ( AIR 2024 SC 3531) . Accordingly, the submission is that Tanti-Tatwa was not a Schedule Caste, as such, the allegation that the complainant was called by his caste name as Tatwa by the appellant is not covered by the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
