ASHALATA EKNATH PATIL Vs. NAMA KAMLU WARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 takes exception to the judgment and order dated October 7, 1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Bombay in Appeal Desk/land-4448. The land in question is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 379 of Village Chargaon, Taluka Ulhasriagar. The land owned by the petitioner herein. The Additional Tahsildar initiated suo motu proceedings under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Land Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 on the assumption that the land belonged to the tribal and the transfer effected in respect of such a land was prohibited. The proceedings were initiated for restoration of suit lands to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. However, during the enquiry, inspite of notice, neither tribal nor the non-tribal transferor appeared. In the circumstances, no evidence could be recorded. The Additional Tahsildar, by the judgment and order dated July 20, 1979, however, found on the basis of the materials on record that the suit land was not belonging to the tribal and it is further found that the tribal has no concern whatsoever with the suit land. That observation is on the basis that the tribal was considered as tenant in respect of the suit land on the tillers day for which proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 were initiated. However, the said proceedings were eventually dropped by judgment and order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Additional Mamlatdar No. II, Kalyan dated June 17, 1962, having found that the tribal clearly stated that he has no concern with the suit land and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In other words, section 32-G proceedings for declaring the tribal as having become deemed purchaser of the suit land came to be dropped. The consequence of that order dated 17th June, 1962 is that the tribal has no right, title or interest in respect of the suit land. That order has become final. It is in that backdrop, the Additional Tahsildar in its order dated 20th July, 1979 has observed that the tribal has no concern with the suit land. However, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai initiated suo motu revision action and has proceeded on the ssumption that the tribal was the owner in respect of the suit land. On that basis, the impugned judgement and order dated October 7, 1979 has been passed directing the petitioner to restore the suit land to respondents 1 and 2 herein.

(2.) HAVING considered the rival submissions, to my mind, the principal premise on which the Revisional Authority has proceeded, is untenable. The Revisional Authority proceeds on the assumption that the tribal respondents 1 and 2 in the present case has some casual connection with the suit land. That assumption is wholly incorrect, for, as observed earlier, the proceedings under the Tenancy Act culminated against the respondents 1and 2 tenants by order dated 17th June, 1962. That order has become final. The consequence of that order is that the respondents 1 and 2 can neither be stated to be tenant nor the owners in respect of the suit land. Whereas, the provisions of the Act of 174 are attracted only when the tribal is the owner in respect of the suit land. There is nothing on record even to remotely suggest that respondents 1 and 2 have become owners in respect of the suit lands. In such a situation, the Revisional Authority could not have proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of the Act apply to the fact situation of the present case. On the other hand, the said provisions had no application at all. The above position is reinforced from the decision of this Court as relied by the Counsel for the petitioner in the case of 1990 T. L. D. (Man.) 272 in the case of (Bandu Pandu Patolev. Deu Ganu Weigh) In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order is set-aside and the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 20th July, 1979 in dropping the proceedings under the Act of 1974 is restored.

(3.) PETITION allowed on the above terms. No order as to costs, Petition allowed.