Bombay High Court
Maroti Kanhoba Dewalkar And ... vs Sou. Lata Bhaujagrao Annake And ... on 15 March, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
J-wp1873.16.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.1873 OF 2016
1. Maroti Kanhoba Dewalkar,
Aged 71 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Laxman Kanhoba Dewalkar,
Aged 66 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
3. Shantabai Laxman Dewalkar,
Aged 61 years,
Occupation : Household.
4. Dinkar Maroti Dewalkar,
Aged 39 years,
Occupation : Agriculturist.
All R/o. Adkoli, Post Marki,
Taluka Zari Jamni, Distt. Yeotmal. : PETITIONERS
...VERSUS...
1. Sou. Lata Bhaujagrao Annake,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Paunar Bela,
Post Bela, Taluka Bela,
Distt. Adilabad.
2. Prabhabai Bhujangrao Annake,
Aged about 43 years,
Occupation : Household,
R/o. Adkoli, Post Marki,
Taluka Bela, Distt. Adilabad.
3. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary,
Revenue Department,
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:54:49 :::
J-wp1873.16.odt 2/4
Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-400 032.
4. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
through its Member.
5. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai-400 032. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri Vivek Awchat, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri Pravin Chutke, Asstt. Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.3 to 5.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND
SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 15 th
MARCH, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
1. Heard Advocate Shri S.R. Deshpande for the petitioners.
Advocate Shri Vivek Awchat for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, and Shri
Pravin Chutke, learned Asstt. Government Pleader for the respondent
Nos.3 to 5.
2. An application under Order 23 Rule (3) of the C.P.C. has
been tendered by the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2. We have
looked into that application.
3. It appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2, namely, Smt.
Lata and Smt. Prabhabai are the daughters of Shriram. Wife of Shriram,
J-wp1873.16.odt 3/4
namely, Subhadrabai had filed proceedings under Section 3 of the
Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 and
Tahsildar on 24.4.1995 passed an order declaring that land cannot be
restored to Subhadrabai. The husband of Subhadrabai, namely, Shriram
expired in 2006 and thereafter Subhadrabai has also expired.
4. The daughters of Subhadrabai on 5.3.2014 moved an
application before the Tahsildar claiming restoration. It is after this
proceedings that petitioners approached this Court seeking verification of
caste claim of the tribal vendor. Their contention is, vendor namely,
Maroti was not tribal.
5. The respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 have been joined as parties
because of this contention.
6. The parties have amicably settled the dispute. The
petitioners have paid an amount of Rs.4.5 lakhs each to respondent
Nos.1 and 2. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 present in Court accept that
they have received that amount. In view of that receipt they are not
pressing their application filed before the Tahsildar on 5.3.2014 and are
accepting the order of Tahsildar dated 24.4.1995 to be final and binding.
7. Advocate Shri S.R. Deshpande and Advoate Shri Vivek
Awchat submit that as order passed by the Tahsildar is being upheld, the
respondent Nos.3,4 and 5 are not necessary.
8. In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, as we find
J-wp1873.16.odt 4/4
that the order of the Tahsildar dated 24.4.1995 is being accepted by
respondent Nos.1 and 2, we dispose of the writ petition in terms of deed
of compromise accompanying the application tendered today in Court
jointly by petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2. The said compromise
is taken on record and marked as Exhibit 'X' for the purposes of
identification.
9. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
okMksns
