DAULAT DHANA MAIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VING felt aggrieved by the order dated 25-10-1976 passed by the Assistant Collector, Amalner Division, and the order dated 3rd January, 1977 in Appeal by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court praying that the aforesaid orders be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of this case, may be stated as follows : the land at Survey No. 158 of village Dhanora, Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon, admeasuring 2 acres and 5 gunthas belonged originally to respondent No. 2- Nawabkhan Jamsherkhan. Under a lease executed, probably, in 1945 (in any event, before 1-4-1957), Daulat Dhana Mali came in possession of that land as a tenant and since then, he cultivated the land till his death. On the operation of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Daulat Dhana Mali became a deemed purchaser of the tenanted land with effect from 1-4-1957 under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In course of time, a certificate under section 32-M about the deemed purchase was also issued to him. Daulat Dhana Mali died thereafter, leaving behind him the present petitioners, who were his legal representatives. They cultivated the land till 1976.

(3.) SOME time in 1976, the Assistant Collector, Amalner initiated, in exercise of his powers under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, a suo-motu proceedings against the legal representatives of Daulat i. e. the present petitioners for restoration of the said land. In the inquiry before him, the petitioners had raised three contentions : First, that respondent No. 2 was not a tribal, in as much as, he was a Muslim Pathan; second, that the lease in question was made prior to 1-4-1957 and, therefore, the same was not recovered by the expression "transfer" as defined in section 2 (1) (i) of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974; and third, that the respondent No. 2 held land which was in excess of ceiling limits. The learned Assistant Collector, Amalner relied mainly upon the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate in favour of the respondent No. 2 and proceeded to discuss elaborately what meaning could be assigned to a tribal in the context of the facts of the present case. He concluded that the respondent No. 2 was a tribal. As regards the second contention, he held that the matter was governed by section 4 of the Act and that, therefore, the suo motu inquiry could be initiated and sustained. As regards the third point, he held that the question regarding the excess of ceiling limits need not deter from deciding a case under section 4 because, in the event of respondent No. 2s land being found in excess of ceiling limits, appropriate action could be taken under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961.