Observing that government land distributed to rehabilitate vulnerable communities cannot be allowed to become a means of private enrichment through backdoor transfers, the Rajasthan High Court has cancelled the transfer of 184 welfare plots allotted to the Gadia Lohar community and ordered a probe into alleged illegal acquisitions by outsiders, including relatives of a Nagar Parishad chairman.A bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by one Rajesh Singh Sisodia and another person challenging alleged irregularities in the implementation of the Keer Kheda Gadia Lohar Yojana, under which around 184 residential plots were allotted free of cost on a 99-year lease to eligible members of the nomadic Gadia Lohar community in 2005 for their permanent rehabilitation.“Public property cannot be permitted to become an instrument of private enrichment through administrative relaxation or indirect transfers in favour of ineligible persons, for such a course is manifestly opposed to public interest and defeats the very constitutional object underlying such welfare measures,” the court said on July 7, declaring that welfare land could not be diverted to those for whom the scheme was never intended.The litigation arose after allegations surfaced that a government relaxation issued in 2022 was interpreted in a manner that enabled plots reserved for the Gadia Lohar community to be transferred to outsiders, undermining a scheme conceived to provide permanent housing and social security to one of India’s historically marginalised denotified, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities.Illegal transfers, inquiryAccording to the petition, the Keer Kheda Gadia Lohar Yojana was launched to provide stable housing to members of the community, whose traditional nomadic lifestyle had left generations without permanent shelter. The plots were allotted under strict conditions prohibiting their transfer. Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Praveer Bhatnagar said the state must ensure meaningful rehabilitation for historically disadvantaged communities.The petitioners alleged that after the state issued an order on April 21, 2022, relaxing certain conditions, the protection built into the scheme was diluted. They claimed that several plots were subsequently transferred to persons outside the beneficiary community, including relatives of respondent No. 8, the Chairman of Nagar Parishad, Bhilwara. They sought cancellation of such allotments, restoration of the land to the state, and action against those responsible.Also Read | ‘People’s mandate can’t be massacred’: Kerala High Court orders jailed councillor’s prison oathDuring the hearing, the state submitted that it remained committed to the welfare of nomadic and semi-nomadic communities and was willing to investigate any irregularities in the sale and transfer of plots reserved for the Gadia Lohar community.Story continues below this adThe counsel appearing for Bhilwara Nagar Parishad chairman Rakesh Pathak and his family members denied the allegations, contending that they stemmed from political rivalry and personal vendetta. It was also submitted that while six plots stood in the names of the chairman’s wife and children, the remaining plots belonged to other persons.Accepting the need for a detailed investigation, the high court directed the Local Self-Government Department to conduct a comprehensive fact-finding inquiry into allegations regarding the illegal purchase of plots by Pathak’s family members and submit its report before the court within six months. Authorities were also directed to take action against every person found responsible.‘Historical injustice’The judgment opened with a reflection on the historical discrimination suffered by the Gadia Lohar community. “History does not merely narrate the past; it often explains the inequalities of the present,” the bench observed before tracing how the British-era Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 branded several nomadic communities as criminals by birth. Although the law was repealed after Independence, the court noted that generations continued to suffer from homelessness, poverty, stigma and exclusion.The court said the Constitution obligates the state not merely to remove legal disabilities but to actively secure substantive equality, dignity and meaningful rehabilitation for historically disadvantaged communities. Housing schemes like the Keer Kheda Gadia Lohar Yojana, it said, are constitutional instruments that are meant to remedy historical injustice.Story continues below this adThe high court ruled that ownership and transfer of plots allotted under the Keer Kheda Gadia Lohar Yojana must remain confined to members of the Gadia Lohar community.Also Read | No one has right to pollute rivers in name of religion: Court flags dumping after ritualsIt declared that any transfer of ownership, leasehold rights, sale, gift, exchange, assignment, bequest or creation of third-party interests in favour of persons outside the community would stand cancelled, even if such transfers were permitted under any government order, scheme or policy.The court further directed that no authority should recognise such transfers or effect mutation entries on their basis. Where any such transfer is found, the plot shall revert to the State Government or the concerned local authority for fresh allotment to an eligible member of the Gadia Lohar community. Persons who paid consideration for such plots would be free to seek compensation and costs from those who sold the property.State criticisedThe bench criticised the state for pursuing rehabilitation policies on one hand while allowing safeguards protecting welfare schemes to be weakened through relaxations. It said that allowing valuable public land allotted as a measure of constitutional rehabilitation to pass into the hands of affluent outsiders would reduce a welfare programme into an ordinary property transaction.Story continues below this ad“The constitutional guarantee of substantive equality does not end with the conferment of a benefit; it extends to ensuring that the benefit continues to serve the very class for whose advancement it was conceived,” the court observed.Allowing the PIL, the high court directed the state to implement its directions within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Before concluding, it observed that the progress of a constitutional democracy “is measured not merely by the rights it proclaims, but equally by the protection it extends to those who have historically remained on its margins.”