SADASHIV RAGHO KOLAMBE Vs. SARDAR KHANDU TADVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions take exception to the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1991 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp at Jalgaon in Rev. Trb. Nos.23, 24, 27 and 28 of 1989.

(2.) The brief facts of the case areas under:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued two important points. Firstly, the case certificate which was issued by the Executive Magistrate was not sent for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and secondly, the respondents had not given undertaking as it is mandatory under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, referred to as "the said Act"). The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that unless the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate is verified by the competent committee, the said caste certificate cannot be relied upon. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this Court in case of Pandit Shridhar Lokhande Vs. Jamsher Sitru Tadvi deceased heirs Mainabai Jamdar Tadvi and others, (Writ Petition No.1636 of 1994, dated 17th June, 2010) and also the reported judgments in case of Daulat Dhana Mali since deceased through L.Rs. Ramkrishan Daulat Mali and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,1994 MhLJ 1710 and the case of Krushna Wasudeorao Ambekar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors., 2010 1 BCR 110. Relying on these judgments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that unless the caste certificates of the respondents are referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee and unless the same are verified by the said committee, the caste certificates cannot be treated as an authentic proof of the caste of the respondents that they belong to tribal community. At the cost of repetition, he further submitted that section 3(3) of the said Act mandates that before passing of the order, an undertaking should be given by the tribals that they themselves want to cultivate the land and they will pay the amount as would be determined by the Tahsildar. Therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that these writ petitions deserve to be allowed.