MANOHAR WALMIK NARAYANRAO KABLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner challenges order dated 15-10-1991 passed by Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Nagpur (for short "m. R. T. ") in appeal under Maharashtra Restoration of lands to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974 thereby confirming the order dated 28th August, 1991 passed by Tahsildar, Chandrapur ordering restoration of the land in favour of the respondent No. 2 Smt. Manjulabai who is widow of original tribal owner Ragho. The facts in brief are as under:

(2.) THE present petitioner on 1/-09-1974 has purchased fields Khasra Nos. 64 and 65 (now Gat No. 9, area 2. 35 acres of village lohara, Tah. and Distt.- Chandrapur) from one deorao Pandurang Makode, who is respondent no. 3 in the present petition, and he purchased these fields on 18-12-1973 from deceased ragho for Rs. 1,900/- and sold it for Rs. 7,000/-- to the present petitioner.

(3.) IT appears that suo-motu proceedings was started for restoration of the land in favour of the trial and restoration was finally ordered. The said order was challenged before the M. R. T. in appeal and the matter was remanded back. After remand the Tahsildar, chandrapur has passed impugned order on 28th August, 1991. The Tahsildar had issued notices to the parties to appear before him. It appears that respondent No. 3 Deorao and ragho appeared before the Tahsildar on 31-01-1990 and 26-06-1989 and their statements were recorded. They confirmed their earlier statements and adopted same stand. The report of Patwari was also obtained on 2/-12-1990. In that report Patwari mentioned that Ragho has expired and survived by widow i. e. present respondent No. 2. He also reported that the above mentioned fields are recorded in the name of Manohar @ Walmik s/o. Narayan kable (present petitioner), resident of chandrapur. It appears that thereafter in view of the above mentioned order of M. R. T. dated 16th January, 1989 further notices were issued on 14-06-1991 and parties were given full opportunity. But the petitioner as also the respondent No. 3 did not remain present. The respondent No. 2 Smt. Manjulabai alone appeared on 31-0/-1991 and she signed statutory proforma No. 3 and also expressed her willingness to cultivate the land personally. She also produced certificates to show that she belongs to Gond (Scheduled Tribe ). The tahsildar therefore, passed order of restoration in her favour. In appeal M. R. T. has considered the validity of this order and on 15-10-1991 found that the order is just and proper. The ground which was argued before M. R. T. was that the deceased Ragho or his wife Manjulabai are not belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The m. R. T. has considered the exercise undertaken by the Tahsildar for this purpose and also written statement filed earlier by Deorao in which Deorao admitted that Ragho belongs to gond' Tribe. Next ground of argument before the M. R. T. was that Smt. Manjulabai is not legal representative of deceased Ragho. However, M. R. T. has also found it incorrect in the result M. R. T. dismissed the appeal summarily.