Bombay High Court
Shri Sadashiv Ragho Kolambe vs Shri Sardar Khandu Tadvi on 16 November, 2010
Author: S.S. Shinde
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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 7 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 8 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 9 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 10 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.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 114. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 12 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 13 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 ::: 14 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/* ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:37:15 :::