RAMBHAU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 (for short, "the Restoration Act"). It is not necessary to state the facts in detail for the purpose of the decision in the instant writ petition. Suffice it to say that the learned authorities under the Restoration Act directed restoration of the field Survey No. 4/1 admeasuring 0.75 acres and the field Survey No. 18 admeasuring 1.48 acres, both of village Mohali Tukum, to the respondents 2 to 4, i.e. the tribal transferors, from the petitioner, i.e. the non-tribal transferee.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has first urged before me that before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short. "the MRT"), the Deputy Collector, Chandrapur, appeared and represented the State and in that capacity also supported the order passed by the learned trial Court. It is his submission that the petitioner was not allowed to be represented through a lawyer and, therefore, the impugned order of the learned MRT in appeal is vitiated. What he contend is that although there is a prohibition for appearance of the legal practitioners in section 9-A of the Restoration Act in the proceedings thereunder, if one of the parties is allowed to be represented by a legal practitioner or an officer of the State the action in not allowing the petitioner to be represented by a legal practitioner is discriminatory and is in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In support of the above contention reliance is placed by him upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (A.K. Roy v. Union of India) (1982)1 S.C.C. 271, which is followed by it in its recent decision in the case of (Johney DCouto v. State of Tamil Nadu) (1988)1 S.C.C. 116. In applying the ratio of the aforesaid decisions it must be borne in mind that they are the cases dealing with the liberty of the individual to whom even otherwise under Article 21 of the Constitution of India there is a fundamental right to be represented by a lawyer. It is only because there is a prohibition under Article 22 for appearance of the legal practitioners before the Advisory Board that such representation is deprived to them. However, the question which still needs to be considered is whether there is any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as urged on behalf of the petitioner in not allowing the petitioner to be represented by an Advocate.

(3.) In appreciating the said submission, it may be seen that the State is not an interested party in the lis before the authorities under the Restoration Act, because the dispute really is between the tribal transferor and the non tribal transferee from whom the suit land is sought to be restored to the tribal transferor. In these proceedings the State is merely a formal party because there is a power to initiate suo motu proceedings in such matters u/s 3 of the Restoration Act. It is clear from the impugned order of the learned MRT that the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4 had appeared in person before it. The State which is not a natural person is naturally represented by its officer.