MAHENDARSINGH DIGVIJAYSINGH MUKNE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 4(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non- Tribals) Rules, 1975.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that land bearing Gat Nos.6, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 17, situated at Mouje Ashagad (Asave), Tal. Dahanu, Dist. Palghar, are ancestral lands to which the petitioner has succeeded. The petitioner belongs to "Mahadev Koli" tribe, which is recognized as a "Scheduled Tribe" in the State of Maharashtra. The father of the 4 th respondent was inducted as a tenant of the aforesaid lands by the predecessor of the petitioner in the year 1940. According to the petitioner, an application under Sec. 36A(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short, "the Code") came to be moved. In the said proceedings, the petitioner and the 4th respondent arrived at an amicable settlement. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner sought quashing of the proceedings initiated by him with a further permission to transfer the aforesaid lands in favour of the 4th respondent. An application dtd. 23/2/2004 in that regard was moved before the Collector. On 1 st September 2006, the petitioner was informed that the 4 th respondent was a non-tribal and as the land was being purchased for agricultural use, in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Transfer of Occupancy by Tribals to Non-Tribals) Rules, 1975 (for short, "the Rules of 1975"), permission for transfer could not be granted. Notwithstanding this communication, the petitioner made another application addressed to the Hon'ble Revenue Minister for State reiterating the request made earlier. The petitioner was again informed on 12 th July 2010 that in view of the provisions of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1975, as the land was being transferred to a non-tribal for agricultural use, such permission could not be granted. The petitioner and the 4 th respondent have since continued their efforts to seek permission from the Revenue Authorities. It is in that backdrop that the petitioner has filed this writ petition raising a challenge to the validity of Rule 4(1)(a)(i) of the Rules of 1975 by urging that as it permits transfer by a tribal in favour of a non-tribal only if the land is to be used for non-agricultural purpose.

(3.) It may be stated that being aggrieved by the order dated 12 th July 2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Jawahar, the petitioner had filed a Revision Application before the State Government on 20 th June 2014. Since the Revision Application was not being heard, the petitioner and the 4th respondent issued communications dated 3 rd May 2016 and 23/8/2016 to the State Government through its Department of Revenue and Forest seeking consideration of the same. When the present writ petition was being heard, the petitioner on 1 st August 2024 made an application before the Department of Revenue and Forest stating that he desired to withdraw the application dtd. 16/1/2008 and the Revision Application dtd. 20/6/2014 with a view to pursue this writ petition. The petitioner also sought leave to withdraw the joint letters dated 3 rd May 2016 and 23/8/2016 as made. It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel for the parties have been heard.