Bombay High Court
Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe vs Shri Sardar Khandu Tadvi on 16 November, 2010
Bench: S. S. Shinde
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.3874 OF 1991.
WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.3875, 3876 & 3877 OF 1991.
1. Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe,
2. Shri Gopal Ragho Kolambe,
3. Shri Bhaskar Ragho Kolambe,
4. Shri Lalji Hari Kolambe.
(petition abated as per order dt.3.9.01).
5.Shri Ashok Hari Kolambe,
6. Shri Subhash Hari Kolambe,
All major, occu. Agri.,
M/g Lalji Hari Kolambe,
At & Post Sangavi Bk.,
Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon. .. PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Shri Sardar Khandu Tadvi,
since deceased through L.Rs.
A. Guljar Sardar Tadvi
B. Mahebub Sardar Tadvi,
C. Baldar Sardar Tadvi, dead,
D. Mohamed Sardar Tadvi,
E. Sayedabai w/o Tadvi.
F. Jaytunbai Burhan Tadvi,
All Major, occu. Agril.
r/o at & Post Sangavi (Bk),
Taluka Yawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. The State of Maharashtra.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 :::
2
3. Scrutiny Committee,
Director of Tribal Research
and Training Institute, Pune.
4. The Member of the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp
at Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri V.T. Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri R.P. Phatke, Special Counsel for R.No.3
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.3875 OF 1991.
1. Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe,
2. Shri Gopal Ragho Kolambe,
3. Shri Bhaskar Ragho Kolambe,
4. Shri Lalji Hari Kolambe.
(petition abated as per order dt.20.8.01).
5.Shri Ashok Hari Kolambe,
6. Shri Subhash Hari Kolambe,
All major, occu. Agri.,
M/g Lalji Hari Kolambe,
At & Post Sangavi Bk.,
Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon. .. PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Shri Biram Samsa Tadvi
(abated as per order dt.7.9.92).
2. Shri Burhan Samsa Tadvi,
D/H.
A. Itbar Burhan Tadvi,
B. Ismaile Burhan Tadvi
C. Abbaskhan Burhan Tadvi
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 :::
3
D. Kalandar Burhan Tadvi -deceased
through L.Rs.
i) Sharikabai Kalandarkha Tadvi.
ii) Sarfaraj Kalandarkha Tadvi.
Iii) Rahimtulla Kalandarkha Tadvi
iv) Vahida Kalandarkha Tadvi
v) Jayada Kalandarkha Tadvi
All major and occu. Agril.
r/o Vadati, Taluka Chopada,
Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Sabaskha Navabkha Tadvi.
4. Rubabkha Navabkha Tadvi
Respondents Nos.1,2(A), (B)(C),
3 and 4 r/o Sangavi Bk.
Taluka Yawal,Dist. Jalgaon.
5. The State of Maharashtra.
6. Scrutiny Committee,
Director of Tribal Research
and Training Institute, Pune.
7. The Member of the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp
at Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri V.T. Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri R.P. Phatke, Special Counsel for R.No.6.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION Nos.3876 OF 1991.
1. Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe,
2. Shri Gopal Ragho Kolambe,
3. Shri Bhaskar Ragho Kolambe,
4. Shri Lalji Hari Kolambe.
(petition abated as per order dt.4.2.02).
5.Shri Ashok Hari Kolambe,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 :::
4
6. Shri Subhash Hari Kolambe,
All major, occu. Agri.,
M/g Lalji Hari Kolambe,
At & Post Sangavi Bk.,
Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon. .. PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Ibrahim Namdar Tadvi
2. Ismail Namdar Tadvi
3. Sikandar Namdar Tadvi
(since deceased through L.Rs.)
A. Siraj Sikandar Tadvi.
B. Navab Sikandar Tadvi
C. Rubab Sikandar Tadvi
4. Smt. Sakubai Ramjan Tadvi (deceased)
5. Bhikubai Daut Tadvi.
6. Amina Jafar Tadvi.
7. Rashida Burhan Tadvi.
8. Supadabai Namdar Tadvi.
All major, r/o Sangavi Bk.,
Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon.
9. The State of Maharashtra.
10. Scrutiny Committee,
Director of Tribal Research
and Training Institute, Pune.
11. The Member of the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp
at Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri V.T. Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri R.P. Phatke, Special Counsel for R.No.10
...
AND
WRIT PETITION Nos.3877 OF 1991.
1. Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe,
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 :::
5
2. Shri Gopal Ragho Kolambe,
3. Shri Bhaskar Ragho Kolambe,
4. Shri Lalji Hari Kolambe.
(petition abated as per order dt.9.3.07).
5.Shri Ashok Hari Kolambe,
6. Shri Subhash Hari Kolambe,
All major, occu. Agri.,
M/g Lalji Hari Kolambe,
At & Post Sangavi Bk.,
Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon. .. PETITIONERS.
ig VERSUS
1. Shri Sardar Khandu Tadvi,
since deceased through L.Rs.
A. Guljar Sardar Tadvi
B. Mahebub Sardar Tadvi,
C. Mohamed Sardar Tadvi,
D. Baldar Sardar Tadvi, dead,
E. Sayedabai Gulab Tadvi.
2. Sakwabai Tamjan G/M Dildar Khandu Tadvi
3. Sikandar Namdar Tadvi since deceased
through L.Rs.
A) Siraj Sikandar Tadvi
B) Nabab Sikandar Tadvi
C) Rubab Sikandar Tadvi
4. Ibrahim Namdar Tadvi
5. Smt. Bhikubai Daut Tadvi.
6. Smt. Amina Jafar Tadvi.
7. Supadabai Namdar Tadvi.
8. Ismail Namdar Tadvi
All major, r/o Sangavi Bk.,
Taluka Yawal,
District Jalgaon.
9. The State of Maharashtra.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 :::
6
10. Scrutiny Committee,
Director of Tribal Research
and Training Institute, Pune.
11. The Member of the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Bombay Camp
at Jalgaon. .. RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri V.T. Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri R.P. Phatke, Special Counsel for R.No.10
...
ig CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J.
16th NOVEMBER, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. These petitions take exception to the
judgment and order dated 2nd July, 2991 passed
by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Bombay Camp at Jalgaon in Rev.Trb. Nos.23, 24,
27 and 28 of 1989.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The suit land bearing Survey No.44 of
village Sangavi originally belonged to the
predecessors of the respondents. The suit
land was divided into seven parts allotting
one share to the seven persons separately with
respect to the part of the land held by them.
The cases were decided by the Trial
authorities i.e. the Assistant Collector,
Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon, by initiating
proceedings in the year, 1976. The cases were
kept pending for some years till the final
decision of the Lingappa Pochanna's case was
pronounced by the Supreme Court. The
Tahsildar, Yawal had decided the cases on 31st
October, 1985 in favour of the respondents.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the
appellants - non tribal preferred appeals
against the said order before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal being Nos.Rev.Trb.92 of 1985
to Rev.Trb. 97 of 1985 and the appeals were
partly allowed and after setting aside the
order of the Tahsildar, the matters were
remanded for fresh enquiry.
After remand, the Tahsildar issued notice
to the parties for the purpose of enquiry. One
Guljar Sardar Tadvi and Mohamed Sardar Tadvi
produced caste certificates issued by the
Special Executive Magistrate, Yawal, District
Jalgaon dated 25th October, 1985 and Guljar
Sardar Tadvi and five others were represented
by him as their General Mukhtyar. After taking
into consideration the oral statements of the
parties
and the papers on record, the
Tahsildar decided the matter finally on 29th
March, 1989 directing to restore possession of
the suit lands to the respondents.
Being aggrieved, the present petitioners
filed appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal. By judgment and order dated 2nd
July, 1991, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
dismissed all the four appeals filed by the
petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners
argued two important points. Firstly, the
case certificate which was issued by the
Executive Magistrate was not sent for
verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee
and secondly, the respondents had not given
undertaking as it is mandatory under
subsection (3) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra
Restoration of lands to Scheduled Tribes Act,
1974 (for short, referred to as "the said
Act").
ig The learned Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that unless the caste
certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate
is verified by the competent committee, the
said caste certificate cannot be relied upon.
In support of his contention, he placed
reliance on the unreported judgment of this
Court in case of Pandit Shridhar Lokhande vs.
Jamsher Sitru Tadvi deceased heirs Mainabai
Jamdar Tadvi and others (Writ Petition No.1636
of 1994, dated 17th June, 2010) and also the
reported judgments in case of Daulat Dhana
Mali since deceased through L.Rs. Ramkrishan
Daulat Mali and ors. vs. State of Maharashtra
and others (1994 Mh.L.J.1710) and the case of
Krushna Wasudeorao Ambekar and ors. vs. State
of Maharashtra and ors. (2010(1) Bom.C.R.
110). Relying on these judgments, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners contended that
unless the caste certificates of the
respondents are referred to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee and unless the same are verified by
the said
ig committee, the caste certificates
cannot be treated as an authentic proof of the
caste of the respondents that they belong to
tribal community. At the cost of repetition,
he further submitted that section 3(3) of the
said Act mandates that before passing of the
order, an undertaking should be given by the
tribals that they themselves want to cultivate
the land and they will pay the amount as would
be determined by the Tahsildar. Therefore,
learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
that these writ petitions deserve to be
allowed.
4. I have given due consideration to the
submissions advanced by the learned Counsel
for the petitioners. On careful perusal of
the judgment and order passed by the Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and more
particularly, para 5 of the said judgment, it
appears that the petitioners herein, who were
appellants before the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, did file Caste Certificate Appeal
No.422 of 1985 before the Commissioner, Nashik
against Ibrahim Namdar Tadvi and others. Some
of the respondents were parties in the said
appeal and the said appeal of the non-tribals
i.e. present petitioners was dismissed and by
the said order, the caste certificates issued
by the Executive Magistrate were confirmed.
It is not in dispute that the said order has
attained finality and no further proceedings
have been filed by the petitioners herein to
challenge the said order passed by the
Commissioner in Appeal No.422/1985.
Therefore, facts of this case stand on
different footing than the facts in the case
of Pandit Shridhar Lokhande (supra). It
appears that in Pandit's case no Caste
Certificate Appeal was filed by the
petitioners therein. Therefore, the Court in
the facts of that case, allowed the writ
petition. However, in the instant case, the
proceedings in the Caste Certificate Appeal
No.422 of 1985 attained finality. In short,
the caste certificates issued by the Executive
Magistrate have been confirmed by the
appellate authority. Therefore, the judgment
in Pandit's case relied on by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners is of no avail to
the petitioners. So far as other judgments in
the cases of Daulat Dhana Mali (supra) and
Krushna Wasudeorao Ambekar (supra) are
concerned, no such appeal was filed by the
petitioners therein challenging the caste
certificates. Therefore, taking into
consideration the outcome of the caste
certificate appeal No.422 of 1985, the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has taken a
possible view, which needs no interference.
5. Coming to the arguments of the learned
Counsel for the petitioners that the
undertaking was not given by the respondents -
tribals before passing of the order that they
themselves would cultivate the lands and they
would make payment of the price of the land as
would be decided by the Tahsildar, from the
judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
it clearly appears that no such argument was
advanced by the petitioners and no such
findings have been rendered by the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. Therefore, in the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, this
Court should not enter into that aspect since
the same was not raised before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal.
6. Therefore, taking overall view of the
matter, in my opinion, no case is made out to
interfere with the judgment and order passed
by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The
tribunal, on the basis of the documents and
evidence on record, has taken a possible view.
7. In the result, writ petitions are
dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated.
Rule stands discharged with no order as to
costs.
[ S.S. SHINDE ]
JUDGE.
...
PLK/*
