HIRAKANT RAMCHANDRA KOTHARI Vs. YESHODABAI ARJUN SUBHANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges order dated 23 March 1989 made by the Tahasildar, Dahanu and the order dated 18 December 1989 made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) (impugned orders), under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (Restoration Act).

(2.) The case set out by the petitioner is that prior to the year 1957, one Ramchandra Ganpat Kore was the owner of property surveyed under No.214, Badapokharan, Dahanu admeasuring about 2 Acres and 23 1/2 Gunthas (said property). As on 1 April 1957, which is the 'the Tillers day' in terms of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act), the petitioner was in possession of portion of the said property admeasuring 1 Acre and 12.8 Gunthas. Despite such position, the name of Arjun Marya Subhane, the predecessorintitle of the respondents, came to be recorded as a tenant in the survey records.

(3.) In the year 1978 or thereabouts some issues arose in respect of said property, primarily on the ground that the same had originally been recorded in the name of Arjun M. Subhane who was admittedly a tribal within the meaning assigned to this term under Section 2(j) of the Restoration Act read with the Explanation to Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (Code). Accordingly, such issues were referred to Tahasildar, Dahanu for suitable action under the Restoration Act . Upon the demise of Arjun, his widow (respondent No.1, against whom this petition has been dismissed as abated vide order dated 15 March 2013) took no steps for restoration under the Restoration Act . However, on 6 October 1988, Arjun's nephew, Ramesh N. Subhane (respondent No.2) applied for restoration under the Restoration Act , even though respondent No.1 was very much living at that time. This proceeding came to be numbered as Restoration S.R. 57 of 1988.