Shyam S/O Tejaraj Chaudhari And ... vs Smt. Wachhalabai Watu Khandate ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1832 Bom

                                                           1                                    judg. wp 408.16.odt 




                                                                                                          
                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
                                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.




                                                                               
                                                     Writ Petition No.408 of 2016.




                                                                              
                         1]        Shyam Tejraj Chaudhari,
                                   aged 34 years, Occ.-Neharu Ward, 
                                   Mohadi, Tah. Mohadi, District Bhandara.




                                                              
                         2]        Ashokrao Govindrao Parate,
                                        
                                   aged 60 years, R/o.-Tandapeth, Nagpur,
                                   Tah. and Distt. Nagpur.
                                       
                         3]        Rupchand Zaniram Hedau,
                                   aged 25 years, R/o.-Mohadi, Tah.Mohadi,
                                   Distt. Bhandara.
         


                         4]        Nitin Mahadeo Patre,
      



                                   aged 30 years, R/o.-Mohadi, Tah.Mohadi, 
                                   Distt. Bhandara.                                         .... Petitioners.





                         Versus

                         1]   Smt. Wachhalabai Watu Khandate
                              (since deceased by L.Rs)





                         1-A) Keshav Watu Khandate,
                         1-B) Subhash Watu Khandate
                         1-C) Ganesh Watu Khandate
                              All R/o.-Subhash Ward, Mohadi, 
                              Tah.Mohadi, Distt. Bhandara.

                         2]        Tahsildar, Mohadi,  Distt. Bhandara.




            ::: Uploaded on - 29/04/2016                                       ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:52:46 :::
                                                            2                                    judg. wp 408.16.odt 




                                                                                                          
                         3]        The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
                                   Nagpur.                                                     ....  Respondents.




                                                                               
                         Shri M.D. Zoting, Adv for petitioners.
                         Shri A.M. Balpande, AGP for resp.nos.2 and 3.




                                                                              
                                                         Coram :  S.B. Shukre, J.

th Dated : 26 April, 2016.

                                                                                    




                                                              
                         ORAL JUDGMENT          
                                        
                         1]        Heard.
                                       

2] Issue notice to the respondent nos. 2 and 3. The learned

Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice for

respondent nos. 2 and 3.

3] At this stage, from the grounds taken in this Writ Petition

for challenging the impugned orders, I do not think that there is

any need for issuance of notice to the legal heirs of deceased

respondent no.1.

4] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent.

                         5]        The only contention  canvassed on behalf of the petitioners 





                                                            3                                    judg. wp 408.16.odt 




                                                                                                          
                         is   that     once   the   matter   has     attained   finality,   the   authorities 




                                                                               

below could not have reopened the matter and decided the

validity and legality of the said transaction between respondent

no.1, belonging to Gond Tribe (Scheduled Tribe) and the

petitioners. It is submitted that in Revenue Case No.

54/LND-31/77-78 of Mohadi instituted suo motu, the learned

Additional Tahsildar, Bhandara examined the validity of the

transaction and held that since the transaction involving mother

of respondent no.1 took place between the tribals, the land in

question could not be restored to the seller i.e. Paikabai the

mother of deceased respondent no.1. According to the learned

Assistant Government Pleader, subsequently, it was found that

the petitioners were not tribals and were Koshti by caste and

therefore, there was no illegality in reopening the case by the

authorities below. He also submits that the transaction had taken

place in the year 1968 and since it was within the period

stipulated i.e. between the year 1974-1975 it was hit by the

provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled

Tribes Act, 1974.

6] Upon going through the impugned orders as well as the

order passed on 11-12-1979 by the then Additional Tahsildar,

Bhandara, I find that there is no merit in the submissions of the

4 judg. wp 408.16.odt

learned Counsel for the petitioners and find substance in the

arguments advanced by the learned A.G.P. for the respondent

nos. 2 and 3. There is no dispute about the fact that subsequently,

it was established that the caste of the petitioners was Koshti and

this caste does not fall within the category of a Scheduled Tribe.

Once it was found subsequently that the petitioners were non

tribals, the authorities below rightly found that the order passed

on 11-12-1979 would not affect in any manner the application

filed by Paikabai for declaring the transaction as invalid. The

subsequent developments which occurred in this case swept away

the foundation of earlier order dated 11-12-1979 and rendered

that order as non-existent having no consequences whatever

upon the subsequent proceedings in the said matter. The

transaction has taken place within the stipulated period and

therefore the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands

to Scheduled Tribes Act are applicable.

7] In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or

perversity in the orders impugned in this petition. The Writ

Petition deserves to be dismissed and dismissed accordingly.

                                                            5                                    judg. wp 408.16.odt 




                                                                                                          
                         8]         Rule is discharged.  No costs.




                                                                               
                                                                                    JUDGE




                                                                              
                         Deshmukh