BHAGWAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Bhagwan Bapurao Kokare, the Petitioner, who is the landholder- transferee of land Survey No. 76/A/2 situated in village Bour, taluka Kalamnuri, district Parbhani, has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which the Tribunal allowed the appeal of Respondents Nos. 3 to 8, ordering as under :

(2.) The Petitioner challenged the said order on various grounds including the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and since there were many similar writ petitions pending, challenging the vires of the said Act, he obtained stay on 6-8-1982. Since then, the stay is operating though the question of vires has been decided by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in AIR 1985 SC 389 (Lingappa Pochanna Appealwar v. State of Maharashtra and another). The learned Counsel, Mr. A. H. Vaishav, arguing for the Petitioner, made a very sweeping remark commenting on the judgment of the Supreme Court that his mouth has been shut because of the said judgment. A senior Counsel like Mr. Vaishnav, according to me, should not have used the language which he did. It is very clear that the Supreme Court by its decision never shuts the mouth of any counsel or party, but lays down law interpreting provisions of an Act which becomes the law of the land and has to be obeyed implicitly by every one. I am sure, hereafter Mr. Vaishnav will realise the mistake committed by him and be temperate always in the use of the words and language. A counsel is always entitled to make a comment on the judgment of the Supreme Court, but the language used by him must always be sober and must indicate his reverence to the decision of the Supreme Court though he may not agree in principle with the decision. A counsel is also entitled to distinguish the facts and law decided in a particular case by the Supreme Court, but that also has to be done with all the reverence and deference to be shown to the judgment of the Judges of the Supreme Court.

(3.) The only point that was argued before me by Mr. Vaishnav in view of the decision of the Supreme Court is that the application made by Respondents Nos. 3 to 8, claiming restoration of land under the Act on the ground that they are Andh by caste and, therefore, belong to Scheduled Tribe, is barred by limitation. The time within which a Tribal must make an application as per Section 3 of the said Act is three years. A halfhearted argument was also made before me as to the geniuneness of Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 claiming to belong to Andh community, but the same has to be rejected on the short ground that there is sufficient material on record, which is not challenged by the Petitioner in the lower Court, to hold that Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 belong to Andh community, which is a Scheduled Tribe.