LAWS(BOM)-2004-6-42

SAKHARAM BHOJU RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On June 29, 2004
SAKHARAM BHOJU RATHOD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of present petition challenges the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 24-10-1991 in Revenue Appeal No. 67/ b-109/91 thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order passed by the Tahsildar, Kelapur vide which the land admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas was directed to be restored to the respondent No. 2 herein.

(2.) THE short background giving rise to the present petition is as under :-That the respondent No. 2 herein made an application dated 21-1-1988 to respondent no. 3 Tahsildar claiming therein that the petitioner was in possession of Survey No. 35/ a admeasuring 4 acres and 29 gunthas owned by the father of the respondent No. 2. The said application was made under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short ). The said application was replied by the petitioner on the ground that since 1964 the father of the petitioner was his tenant and that under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy act") the ownership was conferred upon the father of the petitioner. Purchase price was accordingly deposited. The purchase certificate was issued to the petitioner on 7-8-1986. Vide order dated 19-4-1989 the respondent No. 3 held that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to restoration of the land in question. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went in appeal before the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. However, the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approaches this Court by way of the present petition.

(3.) HEARD Shri. A. A. Naik, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. N. S. j jog, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri. S. R. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4.