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 -3-
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 -4- 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 -5- 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 -6- 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 -7-
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 -8- 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 -9- 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 -10- 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 -11- 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 -12- [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 -13- 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 -14-
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 -15-
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 -16-
(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 -17- 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 -18- 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 -19- 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 -20-
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 -21- 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 -22-
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 -23- 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