Bombay High Court
Baliram S/O Reva Chavhan Thr. ... vs Gajanan S/O Shekarao Wanjare And ... on 13 June, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 955wp1701.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1701 OF 2019
Baliram Reva Chavhan__ Vs. ___Gajanan Shekrao Wanjare and 4 others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.M.Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. R.D.Narkhede, Advocate for respondent no.1
Mrs. M.A.Barabde, AGP for respondent no.5
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 13/06/2023
1] Heard Mr. Sudame, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Narkhede, learned counsel for the
respondent no.1 and learned AGP for respondent no.5.
2] The petition questions the order of the
Tahsildar dated 28.9.2017, whereby under the provisions
of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to
Scheduled Tribe Act, the land transferred by the father of
the respondent no.1 to one Dhansingh Rathod under the
sale-deed of 1967 has been directed to be restored and so
also the order dated 6.2.2019 passed by the learned
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which confirms the order
of the Tahsildar.
3] To complete the narration of facts,
Dhansingh Rathod had partitioned the land between his
sons and the share of the respondent no.2 came to be
transferred to the respondent no.4 on 1.11.1992, who in
(2) 955wp1701.19
turn transferred it to the petitioner on 22.6.1994. The
application under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act was filed
on 6.1.2016. It is an admitted position that the father of
the respondent no.1 belongs to Aandh community, which
in certain areas of Yavatmal was declared as Scheduled
Tribe. The area in which the father of the respondent
no.1 was residing was not included in the notification in
which such declaration was made. The area restriction
was removed in the year 1976.
4] The question therefore was whether the
transaction of the year 1967 which was done with the
father of respondent no.1 on account of his residence
was not entitled to be recognized as such and could be
cancelled on account of the removal of area restrictions
subsequent in point of time.
5] In the present petition itself, considering the
discord between the different judicial pronouncements,
the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this Court,
which by judgment dated 21.4.2023 has rendered its
opinion holding that subsequent recognition of a
transferor as a Tribal within the meaning of Section
2(1)(j) of the Restoration Act would not entitle him to
seek restoration of the land transferred by him to a
non-Tribal-transferee and his subsequent recognition as
such is of no assistance to him for the purpose of availing
of the benefit of Section 3 of the Restoration Act.
(3) 955wp1701.19
6] Mr. Narkhede, learned counsel for
respondent no.1 does not dispute the aforesaid factual
position, in view of which considering the opinion of the
learned Full Bench, the impugned orders dated
28.9.2017 passed by the learned Tahsildar and that of
the learned MRT dated 6.2.2019 cannot be sustained and
are hereby quashed and set aside and the application
under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act filed by the
respondent no.1 is hereby dismissed.
7] The petition is hereby allowed in above
terms. Considering the circumstances, no costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
