DHANA MOHAN TALELE Vs. NABAB SARAJ TADVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 05061992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal No. REV.TRB.82 of 1985 at ExhibitB to the petition and also to the judgment and order dated 13041978 passed by the Assistant Collector, Jalgaon, Division Jalgaon, in Adivasi Case No. 179 of 1975.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that, the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has failed to consider the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, in many case, that if there is dispute about the status of the persons, who are claiming themselves to be tribals then in that case, the issue whether the persons claiming themselves to be tribals or not, has to be decided by the scrutiny authority. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal failed to see that, the respondents belong to Muslim Pathan Tadvi communities, which is not recognised as a Tribal community under Section 38 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Counsel further submitted that the authorities below, failed to see that, the respondents have embraced Islam Religion and that being position, the advantage under this Act are not available to them, as due to this conversion to Muslim Religion. They can not claim themselves as Tribals, and the said position is very clear by a Government Resolution Adivasi Vikas Vibhag at Survey No. 5(13). Learned Counsel also submitted that the Government Resolution No. CBC1680/ 43669/DV, dated 28101980 then Circular No. Vati/0/482/KA4, dated 08021988 and order No.CBC1684/ 309/No.11, dated 24th April, 1985 are totally ignored, while issuing certificate and hence, the caste certificates are illegal and bad in law and should be ignored completely. Learned Counsel also submitted that the respondents have not given undertaking as required under Section 3(3), that they will cultivate the suit land personally and that they will pay the amount, as will be decided under Section 3, sub section (3), under these circumstances the suit land cannot be restored to the respondents.

(3.) On the other hand, learned A.G.P. for the respondents submitted that possible view has been taken by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order.