NAGA YERRA KORTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE of the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this petition is that no review application is maintainable for review of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in exercise of appellate powers under section 6 of Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions contained in Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 are self contained and since no power is conferred on the M. R. T. to review its order, under the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974, the M. R. T. seriously erred in allowing the review application filed by the respondent No. 3 by the impugned order dated 23-3-1983.

(2.) SUO motu proceedings were started by respondent No. 2 under section 36 (2) of Scheduled Tribes Act for restoration of Survey No. 70 admeasuring 16. 15 acres which was transferred by the petitioner who happened to be Scheduled Tribe (for short tribal transferor) to respondent No. 3 - Manohar ( for short non-Tribal transferee ). By order dated 11-12-1979 the Additional Tahsildar, Sironcha ordered restoration of the said land by the non-tribal transferee to tribal transferor in exercise of powers conferred under section 36 (2) of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The non-tribal transferee challenged the order passed by respondent No. 2 before the M. R. T. , who by order dated 30-4-1979 set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2 and remanded the matter back to him for fresh enquiry. The respondent No. 2 held enquiry and by order dated 11-12-1979 directed non-tribal transferee to restore the said land to tribal transferor. The order passed by respondent No. 2 was again challenged by the non-tribal transferee before the M. R. T. under section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. The M. R. T. after hearing parties, by order dated 23-3-1988, dismissed the appeal and maintained the order passed by respondent No. 2 directing restoration of land in question to the tribal transferor. Dissatisfied by the order passed by M. R. T. on 23-3-1988, dismissing the appeal filed by the non-tribal transferee, he filed review application before the M. R. T. purporting to be under section 322 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The M. R. T. after hearing parties, by order dated 27-2-1989, allowed the review application and recalled its previous order dated 23-3-1988 and quashed the order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 11-12-1979.

(3.) MR. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the review application before the M. R. T. under section 322 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not maintainable for review of the order passed by the M. R. T. under section 6 of the Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 relied upon the decision of this Court in (Anupchand v. M. R. T. and others) 1986 Maharashtra Law Journal, 521. In the said judgment, this Court observed thus : the first point urged on behalf of the petitioner by Shri B. N. Mohta is that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not have the power under the Tenancy Act to review its own decision. Section 111 of the Act invests the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with powers of revision and limits the exercise of the powers only to three grounds, namely, that the order of the Collector was contrary to law; that the Collector failed to determine some material issue of law; or that there was a substantial defect in following the procedure provided by the Act, which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (2) provides that in deciding applications under this section the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall follow the provisions which may be prescribed by rules made under this Act after consultation with the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is clear that the Vidarbha Tenancy Act which creates new rights, prescribes new procedure and creates special forums does not invest the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with the power of review. Shri Ahmad the learned Assistant Government Pleader referred to the provisions of section 322 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which permits the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal either on its own motion or on the application of any party interested and where the State Government is heard under section 320 on the application by that Government to review its own decision or order in any case and pass in reference thereto such order as it thinks just and proper. The State Government, however, was not a party to the proceedings before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the revision application nor was it heard by issuing a notice to it under section 320 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The proviso to section 322 restricts the right of the party to move the Tribunal and the review can be made only on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of such party or could not be produced by him at the time when its decision was made, or that there has been some mistake or error apparent on the face of record, or for any other sufficient reasons and requires notice to be given to the party interested to appear or being heard in support of the order. Section 315 (1) provides that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal shall be in cases arising under the provisions of the enactments specified in Schedule J which refers to four other Acts, but not to the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. It is, therefore, clear that the powers which the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal can exercise, under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act would be only those as have been conferred by the Act. The provisions of Chapter XV of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 do not, therefore render any assistance to the learned Assistant Government Pleader for urging that the power of review can be exercised by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also in cases which arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act. "