BAIRAO JIVANRAO PATIL Vs. GULAB SUPDU TADAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner - Bajirao Jivanrao Patil is purchaser of land from Rupchand Chindhu Patil. On 26-03-1970 predecessor-in-title of Rupchand had purchased agricultural property from deceased Gulab Supdu Tadvi, who was a tribal. The Assistant Collector, Jalgaon initiated suo-motu proceedings for restoration of land to the tribal. The proceedings were dropped in view of order passed by the Assistant Collector on 28-02-1976. The Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik took up suo-motu proceedings against order of Assistant Collector dated 28-02-1976 purportedly exercising power under section 7 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short " Act of 1974") and the notice was issued by Additional Commissioner to the petitioner on 15-06-1993. The Additional Commissioner, eventually, allowed revision under his order dated 15-12-2011.

(2.) When the matter was before the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for petitioner relying on judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Shridhar Damodhar Kamlaskar (Wani) deceased heirs and others v. Sonu Ganaji Dhumase and others reported in 2003(2) Bom. C.R. 50 urged that revisional powers exercised by Additional Commissioner under section 7 of the Act of 1974 could not have been exercised beyond period of three years. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 relying on the judgment in the case of Udhav Uttam Patil v. Daga Holkya Bhil since deceased through L.R. And others reported in 2001(2) Bom. C.R. 597, contended that the Commissioner can exercise the powers conferred under section 7 of the Act of 1974 suo-motu any time within a period of 30 years from the commencement of the Act or period of three years from conclusion of enquiry by the Collector under sections 3 or 4 of the Act of 1974.

(3.) Learned Single Judge of this Court observed that view adopted by learned Single Judge in Udhav's case (Supra) appears to be contrary to view adopted by learned Single Judge in Shridhar' case (Supra) and as such, learned Single Judge thought it fit that the matter may be referred to the larger Bench. Thus, the matter is placed before us, on the reference made by the learned Single Judge.