(1.) This is a petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short the 'Act'). Briefly stated the facts are that one Nago Tulsiram, a Tribal, sold his field S. N. 37/1, area 3 acres to one Deorao Ganpat on 7-4-64. The said Tribal had died and the respondent No. 3 Baiaabai claims to be his successor-in-interest about which no dispute is raised by the petitioner in these proceedings. In the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act, the said respondent No. 3 Bainabai had alleged that the said Deorao Ganpat, to whom S. No. 47/ 1 was sold as stated above, gave the said field in partition effected on 20-4-1968 to his brother Marotrao Ganpat, the petitioner in this writ petition.
(2.) There was a second transaction of sale effected by the aforesaid Tribal Nago Tulshiram, who sold S. N. 73|1, area 1.1 acres, on 7-2-1958 to Govind Naraan, who was a non-Tribal. Govind Narayan gifted the said field to his sister -in-law Manjulabai on 17-3-1958 and Manjulabai thereafter sold it to the petitioner Marotrao Govind on 26-3-1969.
(3.) After this Act came into force, proceedings were initiated under Section 3 of the Act against the petitioner non-Tribal for restoration of possesion of the aforesaid fields S. Nos. 471|1 and 73|1 from him to the respondent No. 3 Bainabai, who claimed to be the successor in-interest of the said Nago Tulshiram. The Sub-Divisional Officer (for short S.D.O.) by his order dated 31-7-1976, held that the respondent No. 3 is not entitled to restor tion of land as per Section 3 of the Act. The respondent No. 3, therefore, preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short M.R.T.) by its order dated 24-12-1976. The principal question canvassed before me is that the petitioner, from whom the suit fields are sought to be restored to the respondent No. 3 Tribal, is not a "non- Tribal -transferee" within the meaning of the said expression under Section 3 of the Act.