Bombay High Court
Writ Petition No.1429 Of 1999 vs Unknown on 5 December, 2009
Bench: C. L. Pangarkar
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
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
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
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
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
