Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Ahmednagar on the ground of having been transferred/ sold in contravention of the provisions of Section 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC). The Tahsildar, on enquiry, held the transfers/ sale of those lands to have been in contravention of Section 36A of the MLRC and, therefore, to be invalid, and directed those lands to vest in the State Government. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the said order in revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court.

Tribe and the sale of the lands, therefore, were in breach of Section 36-A of the MLRC. He also claimed for restoration of those lands back to him and other heirs of late Rambha Bala Pawar.
As stated above, both the authorities have concurrently held that the lands belonged to a tribal and have been transferred to a non-tribal without previous sanction of the Collector with the approval of the State Government.

5. Heard. Mr. V.S. Bedre, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, both the authorities below have not taken into consideration the fact that the lands have changed many a hands during the period of 35 years. The respondent No.3 did not take exception to the earlier sale transactions. Late Rambha Pawar has other heirs/ representatives besides the respondent No.3. They have not taken exception to the transfer of the lands under various sale deeds. The learned counsel has relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Vasant Mahadeo Tikekar and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [ 2010(4) Mh.L.J. 773 ], and ultimately urged for remand of the matter for de novo hearing since the Tahsildar did not take into consideration all the aforesaid aspects.

:: 7 ::

9. Section 2(j) of the Act of 1975 defines the term "Tribal" to mean a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of explanation to Section 36 of the MLRC and includes his successor-in-interest. Section 2(k) of the Act of 1975 states tribal-transferor includes his successor-in- interest. It is not in dispute that Rambha Bala Pawar belonged to Bhil community. The Bhil community has been recognized as Scheduled Tribe. There is on record a copy of Tribe Certificate issued by competent authority recognizing Ashok Pawar to have belonged to Scheduled Tribe - Bhil Undisputedly, the petitioner and other transferees are non- Tribals. The lands Gut Nos.96 and 97 changed many a hands from March 1986 to July 2012. Since the lands have been sold by a tribal without previous sanction of the Collector with the approval of the State Government. to the non-Tribal, first in March 1986 and their subsequent sale on 15/2/2011 and 10/7/2012, are hit by Section 36-A of the MLRC. The sale transactions are invalid.

of Vasant's case are quite different. The petitioner cannot be benefited by placing reliance on the said judgment. The respondent No.3 here claims through his grandfather - Rambha, a tribal. The respondent No.3 being successor-in- interest of the original transferor, is considered to be a tribal- transferor within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act of 1975.

12. When the first transfer of the tribal land was hit by Section 36-A of MLRC, the subsequent transfer thereof could not be saved. The petitioners to blame themselves for purchasing the lands which originally belonged to a tribal. Both the authorities below have rightly concluded the sale of the tribal land to have been hit by Section 36A of the MLRC. In my view, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned orders.