CHHOTELAL BANSHILAL AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THUS is a writ petition arising out of the proceeding under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, "the Restoration Act" ).

(2.) THE Respondent No. 3 is the heir of the deceased Tukaram. Tukaram was a tribal and had executed a sale-deed on 18-6-1957 in favour of the father of the Respondent No. 4 viz. Vithal Nagoji Thakare who was a non-tribal. It is the case of the petitioner that he was inducted has tenant by the said Vithal upon the suit field and, therefore, was in possession of the same as his tenant. After the Restoration Act came into-force the original Respondent No. 3 Tukaram filed an application before the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Yavatmal under section 3 of the said Act claiming restoration of possession of the suit field from the petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 4. The original respondent No. 3 Tukaram claimed that he was Gond by caste and was thus a tribal within the meaning of the said expression given in Section 2 (1) (j) of the Restoration Act. He, therefore, claimed that he was entitled to restoration of possession of the suit filed. After notice the Respondent no. 4 submitted that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the suit filed and that he did not have any objection for restoration of the suit filed to the Respondent No. 3. The petitioner, thus alone contested the proceedings. He denied that the original Respondent No. 3 was Gond by caste.

(3.) THE original Respondent No. 3 led evidence before the trial Court in support of his case. He said filed certificates from the Sarpanch and the Talathi of the village showing that he was Gond by caste and was, therefore a tribal. The petitioner, however, did not lead any evidence in that regard. Since the transaction of the sale of the suit filed was during the period specified in the definition of the expression 'transfer' given in Section 2 (1) (i) of the Restoration Act, the learned trial Court held that the original Respondent No. 3 was entitled to restoration of the suit filed to him. He then determined the purchase price of the suit filed in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Restoration Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal (for short, "the MRT" ). The learned MRT, however, dismissed the appeal. He has, therefore, preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.