SANKET SHRIRAM SATAMWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe' is invalidated.

(2.) Mr. Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner is issued with the validity certifcate of Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe on 12.12.2007. Another paternal cousin uncle of the petitioner namely Balaji s/o Marotirao Satamwad is also issued with the validity certifcate under the orders of the Divisional Commissioner who at the relevant time was competent authority in the year 1982. The learned counsel submits that the respondents have relied upon the school record of Yankuram Nagappa Satamwad of Zilla Parishad High School, Mukhed and Narsing Naganna Satamwad of Zilla Parishad School, Mukramabad. These cousin grandfathers of the petitioner had never studied at Zilla Parishad High School, Mukhed and Zilla Parishad High School, Mukramabad. They studied at Zilla Parishad High School, Pala. The family of the petitioner resides at Pala. The father of the petitioner also studied at Zilla Parishad, Pala till 7 th std and Zilla Parishad School, Pala is upto 7th std. The learned counsel submits that the vigilance was conducted while issuing validity to the father of the petitioner and all these entries were verifed by the vigilance and the vigilance report is submitted. The petitioner has specifcally denied that his cousin grandfathers Yankuram and Narsing of having taken education at Zilla Parishad School, Mukramabad. The learned counsel submits that rightly the father of the petitioner was issued validity certifcate after considering all entries.

(3.) Mr. Pulkundwar, learned AGP submits that the vigilance could not fnd school record of Yankuram and Narsing at Zilla Parishad School, Pala. The entries of Yankuram and Narsing at Zilla Parishad School, Mukhed and Mukramabad specifcally record the Tribe as Munnurvar. Even the names of the petitioner's cousin appear in the census of the year 1951 as belonging to Munnurvar. The same has been considered by the Committee and has invalidated the Tribe claim. The learned AGP submits that the lands possessed by the petitioner and the relatives are not restricted lands. The learned AGP submits that the entries in school record of the relatives of the petitioner were not brought before the vigilance at the time of issuing the validity to the father of the petitioner. All these aspects have been considered by the Committee and rightly negatived the Tribe claim. The validity given to the petitioner's father is also sought to be reconsidered.