1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1429 OF 1999.
APPELLANTS: 1. Krushna s/o Wasudeorao Ambekar,
aged about Major, Occu: Cultivator.
2. Damodar s/o Wasudeorao Ambekar,
aged major, Occu: Cultivator.
3. Bhushan s/o Wasudeorao Ambekar,
aged major, Occu: Cultivator.
All residents of and post Desaiganj,
Tq. Desaiganj, Distt.Gadchiroli.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS: 1.The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest
Department Mantralaya, Mumbai032.
2. Doma s/o Shrawan Pradhan,
aged major.
3. Nirmala Madhaoji Karchal,
aged major, r/o Khapri, Post Sonsari,
Tq. Kurkheda, Distt.Gadchiroli.
4. Sushilabai Shrawan Pradhan,
aged major. (Deleted)
All resident of and Post Mohgaon, Tq.
Kurkheda, Distt.Gadchiroli.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr.N.N.Thengre, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Kankale, AGP for respondent no.1.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:56 :::
2
CORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR,J.
DATED: 5th DECEMBER, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. This writ petition challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in an appeal filed by the non-tribal, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar to restore the land to the tribal.
2. The facts are as follows -
The petitioners are non-tribals while respondent no.2 to 4 are said to be tribals and it is alleged that they belong to Halbi tribe.
3. One Smt.Bayabai w/o Ramchandra Ambekar - the mother of the petitioner - had purchased the lands in question from one Doma Shrawan Pradhan and two others in the year 1962. Suo moto proceedings were started by the Tahsildar for restoration of the lands to the Tribals. The Tahsildar, however, had dropped those proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent had filed appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by order dated 5/5/1988, M.R.T. allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:56 ::: 3 for fresh enquiry. Accordingly, the Tahsildar made a fresh enquiry and he found that the respondents belonged to Halbi tribe and the transfer effected by the respondents in favour of the petitioner was in breach of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. He, therefore, directed the restoration of the said lands to the tribals. Feeling aggrieved by that order, the non-
tribals i.e. the present petitioners, preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal concurred with the findings recorded by the Tahsildar and confirmed the order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is preferred.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1/State.
None appears for other respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly challenges the order passed by the courts below on the ground that there was no proper evidence with regard to the tribe status of respondent nos.2 to 4. He submits that the courts below were, in fact, bound to refer ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:56 ::: 4 the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee in order to verify genuineness of the Certificate submitted by the respondents with regard to the status as Halbi tribe. He submits that without such verification it was not proper on the part of the courts below to have held that respondent nos.2 to 4 belonged to Halbi tribe. He submitted that similar question had arisen before this court at Aurangabad Bench and it was found by the court that it was necessary for the authorities below to have referred the said caste certificate for scrutiny to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. This court observes as follows in the decision reported in 1995(2) Bom.C.R.
279 (Daulat Dhana Mali (deceased) by L.Rs. ..vs.. The State of Mah.
and anrs.).
8. As regards the determination of the Tribe, if any, to which the respondent no.2 belonged and determination of the question, whether or not, he was a member of a Scheduled tribe, the contention of Mr.Choudhari, must hold good. The Assistant Collector had decided the matter as far back as on 25/10/1976 and the tribunal had decided it as far back as on 3rd January, 1977. At that time, the Government did not have any machinery for the verification of the tribal claims of the persons claiming to be tribals. This court as well as the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:56 ::: 5 Supreme Court, were required to deal with such matters points in a number of cases, as a result of which, the Scrutiny Committee has been appointed under the Directorate of Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune-I. That Committee consists of the experts who are well-acquainted with the subject. The aforesaid Committee is considered, presently, as the competent authority to verify the tribal claims, even though the Taluka Executive Magistrate and other authorities have issued certificates earlier in that context. The Certificate so issued by the other authorities are since required to be verified by the aforesaid Committee before a conclusion could be arrived at as to whether or not, a person was a tribal. We cannot find fault with the efforts made by the Assistant Collector or the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal in determining, whether or not, the respondent no.2 belonged to any Scheduled Tribe. Indeed, the Judgment delivered by the Assistant Collector exhibits the efforts put in by him to arrive at his own conclusion. But, in the circumstances discussed above, we cannot accept the aforesaid finding as conclusive unless and until the same is got verified at the hands of the Scrutiny Committee. On that count, the impugned orders need to be quashed and set aside and directions are required to be ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:56 ::: 6 given to the authorities concerned to refer the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the Tribe claim.
6. In view of the observations of this court, it is now necessary, therefore, to remit the matter back to the Tahsildar Kurkheda with a direction to refer the caste certificate filed by the respondent nos.2 to 4 to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The orders passed by the M.R.T. and Tahsildar are set aside and quashed. The matter stands remitted back to the Tahsildar with a direction that he shall send the caste Certificate to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of the said Certificate and upon receipt of the finding from the Caste Scrutiny Committee, decide the matter afresh. No order as to costs.
JUDGE.
chute ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:22:56 :::