Rameshlal Zumbadlal Bedmutha And ... vs The District Collector, Jalna And ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2773 Bom

Bombay High Court

Rameshlal Zumbadlal Bedmutha And ... vs The District Collector, Jalna And ... on 17 March, 2026

2026:BHC-AUG:11468


                                                                          WP-2668-2015
                                                  -1-

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2668 OF 2015

                 1.   Rameshlal s/o Zumbadlal Bedmutha
                      Age : 55 years, Occu : Business & Agril.
                      R/o. Ghansawangi, Taluka Ghansawangi.
                      District Jalna, at present Kasturi Market
                      Nigadi, Pune, District Pune.

                 2.   Smt. Nagina Rameshlal Bedmutha,
                      Age : 52 years, Occu : Household,

                 3.   Ritesh Rameshlal Bedmutha,
                      Age : 30 years, Occu : Agri. & Business,

                 4.   Smt. Sapna Mahaveer Bedmutha,
                      Age : 39 years, Occu : Household,
                      Appellant No.2 to 4 are resident of
                      R/o. Ghansawangi, Taluka Ghansawangi,
                      District Jalna, at present Kasturi Market,
                      Nigadi, Pune, District Pune.

                      Through their G.P.A. holder,
                      Appellant No.1 Rameshlal
                      Zumbarlal Bedmutha.                          ... Petitioners

                            Versus

                 1.   The District Collector, Jalna,
                      District Jalna.

                 2.   The Tahsildar, Ghansawangi,
                      Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna.

                 3.   Smt. Banabai Jahed Chavan,
                      Age : 61 years, Occupation : Household,
                      R/o : Ghansawangi,
                      Taluka Ghansawangi,
                      District Jalna.                              ... Respondents
                                                               WP-2668-2015
                                   -2-


                                .....
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Anup R. Nikam, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Ravindra M. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                .....

                         CORAM :         ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                         Reserved on           : 10.03.2026
                         Pronounced on         : 17.03.2026

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is

heard and decided finally. By invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India, petitioners have raised several prayers, but the

fundamental prayer is as under :

"C. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions like in the nature of the impugned judgment and order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the ld. Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Appeal No.57/A/2014 and the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the Ld. Tahsildar Ghansawangi, Taluka Ghansawangi, District Jalna in Case No. 2013/Jamabandi/ROR/Kavi may kindly be quashed and set aside."

WP-2668-2015

2. Learned senior counsel Mr. R. N. Dhorde would brief this Court

about the background of the Writ Petition which, according to him,

has a checkered history. Placing on record synopsis reflecting

chronology of events right from the year 1976 pertaining to land gat

no. 108 situated at village Bahirgaon, taluka Ghansawangi, he would

submit that, several sale transactions have taken place with regard to

above land between and amongst several parties and who are

admittedly non-tribal. He pointed out that, property has changed

hands multiple times up to the year 2007. According to him, for the

first time, after decades of earlier transactions, respondent no. 3

moved the Revenue authority, i.e. Tahsildar, setting up a case that the

land was tribal land. That, she belong to tribal. That, her husband

Jahed had sold parts of the land time-to-time to non-tribal persons

behind her back, and thereby she sought restoration of the land back

to her.

3. Learned senior counsel pointed out that, in the year 2007, even

respondent no.3 participated in a compromise and thereafter again

sale transactions were carried by Sirazuddin Mazi, a non-tribal, and

names of respondent nos. 2 to 4 were also shown to be entered in the

Revenue record. That compromise deed is also part of record.

According to him, again respondent no.3 herein also sold the part of WP-2668-2015

land which she received in compromise, but this time to a tribal

person, namely, Arjun Gaikwad, and this was, according to him, going

on up to the year 2011.

4. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that, again in May

2013 present respondent no.3 mischievously moved Collector office

an application asserting her husband to be a tribal and Tahsildar,

Ghansawangi, who was directed to conduct enquiry, allowed her

application and even proceeded to restore the land in her name.

5. Learned senior counsel pointed out that present petitioners are

bonafide purchasers. That, at no point earlier petitioners were made

aware that lands were belonging to tribal. Therefore petitioners had

approached this Court as well as MRT. That even learned Member,

MRT again directed Tahsildar to decide the matter afresh. Again

Tahsildar allowed the application of respondent no.3 by order dated

31.07.2014. Therefore, again MRT was approached but finally by

order dated 24.02.2015, MRT dismissed the appeal filed by the

petitioners. Hence the Writ Petition.

6. Therefore, precise submissions of learned senior counsel are

that, husband of respondent no.3 Banabai had entered into sale WP-2668-2015

transaction in the year 1988 and thereafter property was sold by said

purchaser to different other persons, but at no point of time till 2007

any objection to the transactions was ever raised by respondent no.3

in spite of knowledge. That, objection is only raised when present

petitioners became owners by virtue of registered sale deed.

According to him, it is an attempt to play fraud on the petitioners at a

belated stage.

7. Learned senior counsel, in support of his contentions, placed

reliance on the following rulings :

a. Darvell Investment and Leasing (India) Private Limited and Others v. State of West Bengal and Others 2023 DGLS (SC)1253; (2024) 1 SCC 165.

b. Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Collie Sangham v. K. Suresh Reddy and others 2003 DGLS (SC) 639; (2003) 7 SCC 667.

c. Punjaji s/o Channusing Halde v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2002 (2) ALL MR 839

d. Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad v. State of Maharashtra and others 2009 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 898; 2009 (3) ALL.M.R. 301.

e. Mahadu s/o Jamnaji v. The State of Maharashtra and others 1997 (4) Bom.C.R. 117.

f. Avinash Tulshiram Limje and another v. State of Maharashtra and others 2007 (4) Bom.C.R. 270.

WP-2668-2015

g. Dhiraj Dattatraya Dharmik v. Administrative and Establishment Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran and others 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 570.

8. In answer to above, learned counsel Mr. R. M. Deshmukh for

respondent no.3 justified the orders of both, Tahsildar as well as

learned Member, MRT. According to him, lands were apparently sold

by husband of respondent. That, the same were clandestine

transactions. That, lands being that of tribal, were not permitted to be

transacted or sold without prior permission of Collector. He invites

attention of this Court to the provisions under Sections 36 and 36(A)

of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code). He also seeks

reliance on following rulings in support of orders of both above fora :

a. Smt. Sunderabai w/o Maroti Metkar v. State of Maharashtra and others 2005 (2) ALL M.R. 751.

b. Ulhas Nimba Choudhari & another v. Sardar Khandu Tadvi and others 2011(6) Bom.C.R. 812.

c. Adivasee Sarvangin Vikas Samitee v. State of Maharashtra and others 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 557.

d. Vimalabai w/o Janardan Mahure and another v. State of Maharashtra and another 2003 (6) LJSOFT (URC) 99.

e. Kashibai wd/o Sanga Pawar and others v. State of Maharashtra 1993 (2) Mh.L.J. 1168.

WP-2668-2015

9. For ready reference, translated version of both the orders

impugned herein, i.e. by the Tahsildar as well as the MRT, is

reproduced hereunder :

Order of Tahsildar dated 31.07.2014 on Application Outward No.2013/Settlement/ROR/DO

"................ Upon perusal of the documents in the case file, it is observed as follows: The land in question originally bore Survey No. 42/1, area 04 hectares 39 R, out of which an area of 02 hectares 20 R was purchased by the husband of the applicant. Subsequently, the said land came to be transferred in the name of Sirhanbin Faisalbin Maji by way of purchase. Thereafter, Sirhanbin Faisalbin Maji sold an area of 01 hectare 41 R out of the said Gat to non- applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 by registered sale deed bearing No. 2153/07. As of today, in the 7/12 extract pertaining to the ownership rights in the present case, the name of non- applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 stands recorded in respect of 01 hectare 41 R of land. Non-applicant No. 1 has purchased land from Shri Arjun Gaikwad by registered sale deed bearing No. 1564/11 dated 04/05/2011; however, the mutation entry in respect of the said land could not be effected in the 7/12 extract as per rules. Thus, as of today, the ownership right of the non-applicants subsists in respect of 01 hectare 41 R, i.e., 03 acres 21 gunthas of land.

Since the applicant has produced a caste validity certificate issued by the competent authority certifying that WP-2668-2015

he belongs to the Pardhi caste, it is observed that the said person is a member of the Scheduled Tribe (Adivasi). On the basis of the above discussion, I hereby pass the following order.

ORDER

1) The application of the applicant is hereby allowed.

2) The decision dated 28/05/2013 passed by the then Tahsildar is hereby confirmed to the extent of Gat No. 108, area 41 Are (03 acres 21 gunthas) at Mouje Bahiregaon.

3) Inform all concerned parties and transfer the case file to the Record Room."

Order of MRT dated 24.02.2015 in Appeal (Case No. 57-A- 2014-Jalna.

"................

Reasons

6. In the present case, it appears from the caste certificates dated 18/01/2007 and 15/02/2014, issued by the Sub-Divisional officer, Partur, that Non-Applicant Banabai Jahed Chavhan and Banabai Uttam Kale are one and the same person. One caste certificate of Banabai has been issued in the name of her father, while the other certificate has been issued in the name of her husband Banabai Jahed Chavhan, R/o Ghansawangi, Tq. Partur, Dis. Jalna and Banabai Uttam Kale, R/o Ashti, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna, is the certificate issued in her maiden name. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, after WP-2668-2015

verification of the caste claim, has issued a Caste Validity Certificate bearing No. 307305, Sr. No. TCSC, certifying that Kale Banabai Uttam alias Banabai Jahed Chavhan belongs to the Scheduled Tribe-Pardhi community. From the above, it stands proved that Banabai Uttam alias Banabai Jahed belongs to the Scheduled Tribe-Pardhi. According to the contention of the Appellant in the present matter, the husband of Non-Applicant No. 3 had purchased the land from Bhagwan Umaji Borkar in the year 1976. Thereafter, in the present case, Non-Applicant Banabai and her husband Jahed Siledar, on 23/02/1988, had sold land from Survey No. 42/1 (Gat No. 108) to Asaram Lahamge. Against the said transaction of sale, Non-Applicant Banabai did not lodge any complaint. Under section 36(A) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 the land belonging to Scheduled Tribes cannot be sold without obtaining prior permission; it cannot be mortgaged, leased out, or transferred pursuant to a court order. Therefore, the sale deed initially executed in favor of Asaram Lahamge by non- applicant no. 3 and her husband was illegal. According to the appellants in this case, appellant nos.2 to 4 had purchased land admeasuring 1 hectare 41 R. situated at survey no. 42/1 from Sirhanbin Faizalbin Mazi on the date 03.09.2007 and the mutation entry has been approved (registered) in their name. Similarly, appellant no.1 had purchased land admeasuring 1 acre from Arjun Gaikwad in the year 2011. According to the Appellant's contention, the appellant has purchased the land and has thereby become the owner of the said land. Upon perusing the order passed WP-2668-2015

by the Tahsildar, Ghansawangi and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad had remanded the case for re-inquiry, accordingly notices were issued to both parties, giving them an opportunity to present their say. The caste validity certificate of non-applicant no.3- Banabai Jahed Chavhan, resident of: Ghansawangi, has been filed in the said case. The appellant has argued that the caste certificate of the non-applicant was not valid and Tahsildar has concluded that this argument is untenable. Out of the land admeasuring 4 hectares 39 R., situated at original survey no.42/1, the land admeasuring 2 hectares 20 R. was purchased by the husband of non-applicant no.3- Banabai. Therefore, it was observed that Section 36(A) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was violated during the transfer of the tribal land. As per the order passed by the Tahsildar Ghansawangi on the date 31.7.2014, the application of non-applicant no.3 Banabai Jahed Chavhan in case no.2013/Jamabandi/ROR/Kavi was allowed and the order dated 28.5.2013 passed by the then Tahsildar of Ghansawangi has been upheld. According to this order, the Tahsildar Ghansawangi has upheld the order regarding the land admeasuring upto the limit of 1 hectare 41 R. (3 Acre 21 Gunthe). Tahsildar Ghansawangi had issued a notice in Form 'C' under sub-section 6 of the section 36(A) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and an explanation was sought from the appellants within a period of 90 days. Accordingly, it appears that non-applicant no.3- Banabai Jahed Chavhan and her husband in this case had illegally transferred the land situated at old survey no.42/1 (from WP-2668-2015

gat no.108). As per the order passed by the Tahsildar Ghansawangi in case no. 2013/Jama/ROR/CR, dated 28.5.2013, since sub-sections 1 to 6 of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, are for agricultural land and since non-applicant no.3- Banabai Jahed Chavhan belongs to the Hindu Pardhi community within the Scheduled Tribes, the order was issued to remove the appellant's possession over the land situated at old survey no.42/1 (gat no.108) and to restore possession of the said land to the non-applicant - tribals. It would be appropriate to uphold the orders passed by the Tahsildar Ghansawangi on the 31.7.2014 and the 28.5.2013. The non-applicant no.3 and her husband had transferred the land on the 23.2.1988, without obtaining permission. After that, since the said transaction was illegal, all subsequent purchase transactions are also illegal. Therefore, the following order is hereby passed:

Order [1] The appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed.

[2] The order passed by the Tahsildar Ghansawangi on the date 31.7.2014 in the case no.2013/Jamabandi/ROR/ Kavi and the order passed by the then Tahsildar Ghansawangi on the date 28.5.2013 are hereby upheld.

[3] The said order shall be communicated to the concerned parties, and the files of the lower court regarding this case shall be returned.

[4] This decision (order) has been pronounced in open court.

WP-2668-2015

[5] The file shall be closed and transferred original file to record room."

10. On one hand, petitioner's have come with a case that they are

bonafide purchasers. That, since 1976, parts of the land in question

were sold by various persons to various persons. That, there was no

objection either by Revenue authorities, or registration authorities

and even present respondent no.3, in spite of knowledge of several

sale transactions, at no point of time ever raised such objection. That,

after almost more than three decades, objection is taken for the first

time when present petitioner's stood beneficiary and became owner

by way of registered sale transactions. It is their specific case that, it is

a fraud played on both, petitioners as well as Government. As regards

to impugned orders are concerned, it is petitioner's contention that

above aspect has not been taken into account by both the forums.

11. Indeed, on going through the record, there seems to be a long

and checkered history of sale transactions which are reflected in the

Writ Petition itself. Exhibits placed on record by the petitioners

demonstrate that, Jayed Chavan, who is said to be husband of

respondent no.3, purchased 2 Hectare and 20 Are land out of total 4

Hectare 39 Are land situated at Survey No. 42/1 at Mauje WP-2668-2015

Bahiregaon, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna from one Bhagwan Umaji

Borkar vide registered sale deed dated 17.06.1976. Then, said Jayed

as well as present respondent no.3 sold the said land from to Asaram

Lahamge in 1988. Said Asaram further is shown to have transacted 81

Are land out of 2 Hectare 20 Are land to Piraji Madhavrao Chirtal, 1

Hectare 20 Are land to Satyakumar Nakka and remaining 36 Are land

to Vilasrao Kharat during the years 1991 and 1992. Again land from

Gat No. 108 is shown to be sold by Piraji and Satyakumar to

Sirhanbin Faisalbin Mazi in the year 2007 and he seems to have

instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 82 of 2007 on account of obstruction

by present respondent no.3 Banabai, in which suit certain

compromise took place and she got 40 Are land. The compromise

seems to be of 15.06.2007 and present petitioners purchased land

owned by said Mazi vide registered sale deed dated 13.09.2007 and

they claim to have thereby become owners and possessors since then.

It is the the specific contention of petitioners that time to time, during

above sale transactions, consequential Mutation Entries were entered

in the Revenue record but there was neither any suo motu action by

the Revenue authorities nor respondent no.3 ever asserted claim over

the land she being tribal, and rather, willingly transactions were

carried out with non-tribal persons. That, only when petitioners

became owners and possessors, above objection has been raised.

WP-2668-2015

12. Record shows that, respondent no.3 filed application before

Tahsildar, admittedly for the first time taking objection to the above

transactions and seeking restoration and she also found favour from

the learned Tahsildar who allowed the application by order dated

28.05.2013. The same was questioned by petitioners before learned

MRT vide appeal no. 49/A of 2013 who, according to petitioners, was

convinced that transaction in their favour were valid and said

authority remanded the matter for fresh consideration before the

Tahsildar. But again, after hearing both the parties, the Tahsildar

maintained his previous decision and again allowed application of

respondent no.3 by order dated 31.07.2014. Second round of

challenge seems to have been made before MRT but this time, by

order dated 24.02.2015, the learned Member, MRT was pleased to

confirm the order of Tahsildar. Resultantly, dissatisfied by the same,

petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court.

13. Meanwhile, record shows that present respondent no.3 stood

beneficiary of caste validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny

Committee, against which the petitioners also instituted Writ Petition

No. 7632 of 2014 in this Court and in the said petition, she also seems

to have succeeded. Orders of this Court demonstrate the same.

WP-2668-2015

14. Therefore, the issue which is now required to be addressed is,

when several transactions were made since 1976 with some

purchasers who were non tribal, whether Tahsildar and thereafter

Tribunal were justified in directing restoration of land back to

respondent no.3. There is no denial and even orders and papers

placed before this Court show that respondent no.3 indeed belongs to

Scheduled Tribe. The provision which is taken recourse to by the

authorities, i.e. Section 36(A), is for ready reference borrowed and

reproduced as under :

36A. Restrictions on transfer of occupancies by Tribals. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of section 36, no occupancy of a Tribal shall, after the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Mah. XXXV of 1974), be transferred in favour of any non-Tribal by way of sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or an award or order of any Tribunal or authority), gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or otherwise, except on the application of such non-Tribal and except with the previous sanction -

(a) in the case of a lease or mortgage for a period not exceeding 5 years, of the Collector; and WP-2668-2015

(b) in all other cases, of the Collector with the previous approval of the State Government:

Provided that, no such sanction shall be accorded by the Collector unless he is satisfied that no Tribal residing in the village in which the occupancy is situate or within five kilo metres thereof is prepared to take the occupancy from the owner on lease, mortgage or by sale or otherwise.

Provided further , that in villages in Scheduled Areas of the State of Maharashtra, no such sanction allowing transfer of occupancy from tribal person to non-tribal person shall be accorded by the Collector unless the previous sanction of the Gram Sabha under the jurisdiction of which the tribal transferor resides has been obtained.]

Provided also that, in villages in Scheduled Areas of the State of Maharashtra, no sanction for purchase of land by mutual agreement, shall be necessary, if,-

(i) such land is required in respect of implementation of the vital Government projects; and

(ii) the amount of compensation to be paid for such purchase is arrived at in a fair and transparent manner.

Explanation. - For the purposes of the second proviso, the expression "vital Government project" means project undertaken by the Central or State Government relating to WP-2668-2015

national or state highways, railways or other multi-modal transport projects, electricity transmission lines, Roads, Gas or Water Supply pipelines canals or of similar nature, in respect of which the State Government has, by notification in the Official Gazette, declared its intention or the intension of the Central Government, to undertake such project either on its own behalf or through any statutory authority, an agency owned and controlled by the Central Government or State Government, or a Government company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013) or any other law relating to companies for the time being in force.]

(2) The previous sanction of the Collector may be given in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

(3) On the expiry of the period of the lease or, as the case may be, of the mortgage, the Collector may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force; or any decree or order of any court or award or order of any tribunal, or authority, either suo motu or on application made by the tribal in that behalf, restore possession of the occupancy to the Tribal.

(4) Where, on or after the commencement of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Tenancy Laws (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Mah. XXXV of 1974), it is noticed that any occupancy has been transferred in contravention of WP-2668-2015

sub-section (1) 48 [the Collector shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, either suo motu or on the application made by any person interested in such occupancy,] 49 [or on a resolution of the Gram Sabha in Scheduled Areas] [within thirty years form the 6th July 2004] hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner and decide the matter.

(5) Where the Collector decides that any transfer of occupancy has been made in contravention of sub-section (1), he shall declare the transfer to be invalid, and thereupon, the occupancy together with the standing crops thereon, if any, shall vest in the State Government free of all encumbrances and shall be disposed of in such manner as the State Government may, from time to time direct.

(6) Where an occupancy vested in the State Government under sub-section (5) is to be disposed of, the Collector shall give notice in writing to the Tribal-transferor requiring him to state within 90 days from the date of receipt of such notice whether or not he is willing to purchase the land. If such Tribal-transferor agrees to purchase the occupancy, then the occupancy may be granted to him if he pays the prescribed purchase price and undertakes to cultivate the land personally; so however that the total land held by such Tribal-transferor, whether as owner or tenant, does not as far as possible exceed an economic holding.

WP-2668-2015

Explanation. - For the purpose of this section, the expression "economic holding" means 6.48 hectares (16 acres) of jirayat land, or 3.24 hectares (8 acres) of seasonally irrigated land, or paddy or rice land, or 1.62 hectares (4 acres) of perennially irrigated land, and where the land held by any person consists of two or more kinds of land, the economic holding shall be determined on the basis of one hectare of perennially irrigated land being equal to 2 hectares of seasonally irrigated land or paddy or rice land or 4 hectares of jirayat land."

15. From the above provision, it is abundantly clear that land

belonging to a tribal cannot be sold or dealt with, without prior

permission of Collector. Here, admittedly at no point of time,

permission was obtained from said authority either by purchasers or

even by husband of respondent no.3. Indeed, even at one point of

time, there is participation of present respondent no.3 in a suit and

she also entered into a compromise deed, but that would not alter or

affect the position emerging from above provision. The intention of

legislature is writ large, i.e. imparting distributive justice and with

intention to alleviate oppression, redress bargaining imbalance and

cancel unfair disadvantages. [Smt. Sunderabai (supra)]. Similar views

are echoed in the judgment of Nagpur Bench of this Court in

Vimalabai w/o Janardan Mahure (supra).

WP-2668-2015

16. Learned counsel for petitioners has sought reliance on various

rulings stated above. On going through the same, it is emerging that

in the first case of Darvel Investments (supra), issue was distinct.

Therein it was held that, once father is not shown to be a Scheduled

Tribe, even his legal heirs cannot claim themselves to be Scheduled

Tribe. Therein, primary issue was with reference to caste certificate

issued in favour of respondent no.15 therein, and the matter had been

dealt by the Scrutiny Committee and therefore, finding no merit in

the claim of respondent no.15, Civil Appeal was dismissed.

The second ruling in the case of Ibrahimpattam (supra), there

was issue of what is meant by reasonable time and issue of delay was

under consideration. Therefore, on facts, the said decision cannot be

taken aid of by the petitioners.

In the case of Punjaji (supra), which is a ruling of this Court at

Nagpur, issue was, whether in a petition by vendor, the vendee can

agitate caste claim of the vendor. However, on going through the

judgment, it is clear that, in the same also, the issue of previous

sanction of Government for conducting auction of a land belonging to

a tribal who had defaulted in loan repayment was under

consideration. In that case, there was no dispute that petitioner was WP-2668-2015

belonging to Scheduled Tribe and therein Additional Commissioner

had passed orders as a special case, directing the Collector to consider

validity of the auction. In those peculiar circumstances, the Revenue

authorities had directed consideration of the auction to be valid. It

was noticed by this Court that Additional Commissioner had not

dwelt on the aspect of caste claim of the petitioner and there was no

challenge to the order of caste claim of the petitioner therein. In para

17, this Court had categorically held that the findings of the

authorities below that, transfer in favour of respondent is invalid for

want of sanction, could not be sustained as there was no adjudication

of the issue of tribe claim of the petitioner. Here, it is not so. Here,

there is caste validation of respondent no.3 who successfully

demonstrated that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Even respondent

no.3 had faced the process undertaken by caste validity committee.

As regards to the ruling of Mahesh (supra) is concerned, issue

was of denial of principles of natural justice. Here, there is no such

issue. Rather, before both, Tahsildar as well as Member, MRT, parties

were heard to their satisfaction and thereafter impugned decisions are

passed.

WP-2668-2015

17. On the contrary, the judgment relied by learned counsel for

respondent no.3 in the case of Lacchobai (supra), law to the extent of

transfer of land of a tribal and bar of Section 36 is succinctly dealt

with i.e. under the provisions of Maharashtra Restoration of lands to

Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. It has been clearly held that, transfer of

tribal land would stand void after the said Act came into force in

November 1975.

Likewise again, in the judgment Smt. Sunderabai (supra), scope

of Section 4 of the Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974

and Section 36(A) of the MLR Code has been touched upon. Even in

this petition, there were orders of Tahsildar as well as MRT.

18. To sum up, though record shows that land in question and

parts of the said land were transacted to several persons, statutory

right of respondent no.3 could not be defeated merely on such count.

Both, learned Tahsildar as well as learned Member, MRT, have dealt

with the matter with correct legal perspective. The transactions by

and between non-tribal with tribal were apparently void ab initio . No

error in their orders is brought to the notice of this Court, except

agitating that respondent no.3 at no point of time asserted her to be WP-2668-2015

tribal and therefore land could not be dealt with. There being no

merit in the Writ Petition, the following order is passed :

ORDER

I. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

II.      Rule stands discharged.



                                           [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

19. After pronouncement of this judgment, learned counsel for the

petitioners sought stay to the effect and operation of this order for a

period of four weeks, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. In view of the same, there shall be stay to the

effect and operation of this order for a period of four weeks from

today.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre