KANIRAM JAGANNATH LOKHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners purchased the lands in dispute from respondent No. 3 for a sum of Rs. 1,800 on 17-4-1963. A few days before they filed an application in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution on 5-1-1976, they received a notice from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umrer calling upon them to appear before him on 28th of August 1975 to show cause why the lands Khasra Nos. 7 and 8 should not be restored to the tribal, respondent No. 3, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Subsequent to the service of the first notice, the Government of Maharashtra framed rules on 1st of November 1975 under the Act prescribing the forms in which the notices were to be served for initiating the proceedings for restoration of lands to the tribals. Another notice, therefore, was also served in form No. II requiring the petitioner to appear on 28th of December 1975. The petitioners challenge the validity of the Act as also the legality of these notices in this Special Civil Application.

(2.) Rule and interim stay was granted by this Court on 7th of January 1976 as in many other cases challenging the validity of the Act. After this rule was granted, the Act itself has now been included in the Ninth Schedule under the 40th Constitution Amendment Act of 1976, The effect of the inclusion of this enactment in the Ninth Schedule is to immunise it from any attack on its validity by reference to any provision in Part III of the Constitution, including Arts. 14, 15, 19 and 31.

(3.) Mr. A.P. Deshpande, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners, therefore, could not press his contention based on these constitutional provisions. He, however, raised two points for our consideration. He firstly contends that the Act is an incomplete and defective piece of legislation in that, though the restoration of land to the tribal is intend-ed to be accompanied by refund of the purchase price and value of the improvements made, by him to the non-tribal, the Act not only does not provide any machinery for the enforcement of the recovery thereof, but on the contrary precludes even the Civil Court from doing it. He secondly challenges the legality of the notices as being not in conformity with requirement of the Act.