NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, the Act).

(2.) The petitioner is a Non-Tribal who had purchased the field survey number 77/2, admeasuring 6 acres of village Chincholi, Tahsil Darwha, District Yeotmal by registered sale-deed dated 15-5-1957 from the respondent No. 1-Tribal. The said transfer made to him by the respondent No. 2 tribal was thus within the mischief of section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Sou motu proceedings were initiated against him by the Additional Tahsildar for transfer of the suit field to the respondent No. 2 tribal under section 3 of the Act. Accordingly after making necessary enquiries the learned Additional Tahsildar directed by his order dated 30-12-1978 that the suit field should be restored to the respondent No. 2-tribal. It appears that the petitioner had initially filed a writ petition in this Court challenging the validity of the Act, which was withdrawn some time in April, 1984. He thereafter filed an appeal under section 6 of the Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short, M.R.T.). The learned M.R.T. by its order dated 15-10-1984 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.

(3.) The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the suit field originally belonged to the mother of the petitioner and that the sale-deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 by her was as a security for the loan of Rs. 900/- received by her from the respondent No. 2. According to him, the purchase by him of the suit field from the respondent No. 2 on 13-6-1957 was only a nominal one in view of the above facts. No material was placed on record to prove the loan transaction and also to prove that the suit field was sold by the mother of the petitioner to the respondent No. 2 by way of security. Therefore, as found by the learned M.R.T. when the suit field was in possession of the tribal-respondent No. 2 as its owner till 13-5-1957 on which date it was sold by him to the petitioner, the said transfer is clearly within the mischief of section 2(1)(i) of the Act. The finding of the learned M.R.T. is thus correct and has to be affirmed.