LACHHOBAI G YADAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this writ petition challenges the order dated 29-12-1990 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal (MRT) in Revenue Appeal No. 162/b-109/88 whereby the learned tribunal confirmed the order dated 17/12/1983 passed by the Tahsildar in revenue case No. 6/lnd-31/82-83 holding that the respondent No. 2 tribal-transferer is entitled for restoration of the land which is in possession of the non tribals i. e. Kashiram Laxman and Tukaram Daji and also directing them to deliver possession to the tribal,by exercising powers under section 3 (4) of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled tribes Act, 1974 (for short the restoration Act ). The relevant facts are as under :

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Chindhu Halbi belongs to tribal caste and he owned agricultural land gat No. 31/1 area 3. 00 acres (i. e survey Nos. 94 and 95 of mouza'salaitola, Tahsil-Salekasa, District-Bhandara ). He transferred the said land to Kashiram Laxman and Tukaram Daji by virtue of sale deed dated 1/5/1969. Thereafter Kashiram and Tukaram had also transferred the said land to one Jagdish Mendhe and subsequently and finally on 14/ 2/1983, Jagdish Mendhe had transferred the said land by way of sale to the petitioners, i. e. 2. 00 acres to the petitioner No. 1 and 1. 00 acre to the petitioner No. 2 and the possession was also delivered to them. The tribal had initiated the proceedings by way of application under section 3 of the Restoration Act before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar held enquiry and by exercising his jurisdiction, he recorded findings that the tribal Chindhu is entitled for the restoration of land by virtue of subsection (3) of Section 4 of the Act and consequently directed to restore the land to the tribal by delivering possession free from all encumbrances with further direction that the cost of the land and value of improvement shall be determined after due enquiry as per rule 5 of the Maharashtra restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Rules, 1975 (for short, the Restoration Rules ). Kashiram and Tukaram who wtre the non tribal-transferors, did not challenge the decision of the Tahsildar. The petitioners had been in possession of the land as it is said to have been transferred to them, and therefore, they had carried appeal before the MRT, the learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties dismissed the appeal by holding that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the order of the Tahsildar and that the petitioners did not acquire any right, title or interest in the land by virtue of the transfer made in favour of them by jagdish Mendhe, on 14/2/1983 during the pendency of the restoration proceedings which were pending before the Tahsildar. This is how, the petitioner are before this Court in this writ petition.

(3.) MR. Badiye, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the Restoration Act came into force on 1/11/1975 and the tribal Chindhu had instituted the proceedings for restoration of land on 27/1 / 1976 which is barred by the period of limitation, because as per section 3, the application has to be made to the Collector or the Collector can suo motu institute the said proceedings within three years from the commencement of this Act. The next submission of Mr. Badiye is that the petitioners were not made party to the restoration proceedings before the Tahsildar and no notice was issued to them and they were taken by surprise after they had received the notice from the Tahsildar to deliver the possession to the tribal. Mr. Badiye further contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, and therefore, the order passed against them without hearing them by the Tahsildar, cannot be sustained in law and therefore, the matter be remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh decision on merits, in accordance with the law.