REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

BALIRAM Appellant

V/S

GAJANAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BABULAL RAMNATH DEKATE AND OTHERS VS. SHANTABAI WD/O HARI DEKATE [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTELAL BANSILAL AWASTHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAGABAI HONDIBA GUTTE VS. LADBA SON OF NARAYAN SIDARWAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R BHUSAL [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM S O LAXMAN GANDEWAR VS. PIRAJI S O DHARMAJI SIDARWAR DIED [REFERRED TO]
SHEIKH MOHAMMAD S O SHEIKH GULAB VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL JIANNA MADREWAR VS. POSHATTI BHOJANNA KHURD [REFERRED TO]
BHUJAJI MAHADU INGOLE VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD DIVISION AURANGABAD [REFERRED TO]
BAPURAO NARAYAN TELRANDHE VS. SHALIK RAMBHAU SARATE [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHAGABAI VS. LADBA S O NARAYAN SIDARWAD [REFERRED TO]
JAYANNA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. SALIL SABHLOK [REFERRED TO]
LACHMANNA MALANNA ALURWAR VS. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KASHIBAI SANGA PAWAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAMESH PRASAD VERMA [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA NATTHUJI DHOB VS. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
SHAH FAESAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) By this reference, we have been called upon to answer a question which arises quite often while applying the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes, 1974 (for short "Restoration Act") and which has intrigued legal minds in the State of Maharashtra for quite sometime. For answering the question, a brief reference to the facts of the case would be useful.

(3.) The petitioner, a non-tribal, is an owner of the agricultural field involved in the petition, which is hereinafter called as 'the land in question'. It was purchased by the petitioner from respondent no.4 vide registered sale deed dtd. 26/6/1994. The land in question was a part of larger piece of land belonging to father of respondent no.1 late Mr. Shekorao who sold it to one Dhansingh Rathod by executing the sale deed in the year 1968. Dhansing, thereafter, partitioned the land and the land in question came to the share of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 sold the land in question to the respondent no.4 and thereafter the respondent no.4, on 22/6/1994, sold the land in question to the petitioner and since then the petitioner is in continuous cultivating possession of the land in question.

Click here to view full judgment.

BALIRAM Vs. GAJANAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address