ULHAS NIMBA CHOUDHURY Vs. BURHAN SAMSA TADVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgmenl, I shall dispose of both the writ petitions since the issues involved in them are identical. In both these petitions, main question to be determined is : Whether due to conversion to "islam" religion, the tribals have lost right to reclaim their agricultural lands under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes act, 1974 (for short "m. R. L. S. T. Act") and hence the restoration of lands as ordered by the Tahsildar and confirmed by impugned order by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal (MRT) deserve to be quashed

(2.) The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 850 of 1990 have come out with a case that predecessors in title of respondents, late Vajir Khan, Amir Khan and subhan Khan transferred Survey No. 12/7 in their favour by virtue of sale deed dated 30th November, 1968. After receiving the sale proceeds, those vendors got purchased some other agricultural lands. The transactions of the predecessors in title of the respondents are covered by explanation (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the M. R. L. S. T. Act. Thus, it could be regarded as deemed exchange of properties. The land in question, (Survey No. 12/7) was originally held by rahimkhan and his four sons as "inamdaars" and it was granted to them. They were not "aadivasis" but had changed religion by embracing "islam" religion. Aadivasi Case No. 201 was slanted before learned Tahsildar, Yawal, for restoration of the said agricultural land in favour of the predecessors in title of the respondents, on the ground that they were tribals and the sale deed was void due to operation of the abovereferred enactment. By his judgment dated 11th november, 1985 the Tahsildar, directed restoration of the possession in favour of the predecessors in title of the respondents, holding that they were Aadivasis (tribals). The appeal (Rev. TRB No. 87 of 1985) preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the MRT. Both the revenue authorities failed to appreciate the important questions of law, particularly regarding deemed exchange of lands and also the fact that the vendors of the petitioners were not tribals but were "muslims" by religion. The petitioners, therefore, seek to assail the judgments of the MRT and the Tahsildar.

(3.) In Writ Petition No. 803 cof 1990 the petitioners have come out with a case that agricultural land bearing Survey No. 56/2-B admeasuring 1 Hectare, 25 ares was purchased by them in the: year, 1968 from the respondents. They have improved the land in question by spending more than Rs. 50,000/ -. After consolidation of the lands now it is converted into Gat No. 160 and hence the identity of the original suit property is not in existence. The respondents are not tribals but are "muslim Tadavi" or "muslim Pathan" and hence they cannot claim any right of restoration under the provisions of the M. R. L. S. T. Act. The tribe certificates issued in favour of the: respondents are illegal and bad in law. No proper enquiry was conducted while issuing the tribes certificates in their favour. The proceedings were initiated s;uo motu under relevant provisions of the aforesaid enactment and eventually, restoration of the suit land in favour of the respondents was directed by the Tahsildar, by his order dated 31st October, 1985 which was confirmed in appeal by the MRT. Both the authorities failed to apply their minds to the fact situation of the transaction. Consequently, the impugned judgments are liable to be quashed and hence the petition.